Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Profit-sharing Schemes

Mr. Wade: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage the adoption of co-partnership schemes by industrial firms.

Mr. Gower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Treasury will take to encourage firms seeking to introduce co-partnership, profit-sharing and similar schemes.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): The Government's policy on these matters was stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of. Labour in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) on 15th July last.

Mr. Wade: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to encourage the introduction of profit-sharing schemes by fiscal policy, can he give an assurance that firms willing and anxious to introduce either profit-sharing or ownership-sharing involving the transfer of shares to employees will not be deterred from doing so by the policy pursued by the Inland Revenue or by decisions of the Capital Issues Committee?

Mr. Butler: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has got the situation quite clear. First, we encourage and like to see firms engaging in practices of this sort. Secondly, there is surprisingly little scope for the Government to encourage profit-sharing and co-partnership by way of fiscal relief, for this reason, which I think the House would like to know: the employer's contribution counts as a business expense, so there is no taxation

to relieve. It is important to get that clear in order to see that the Inland Revenue is not being quite so unfriendly as the hon. Member may have imagined.

Mr. Gower: Am I right in supposing that my right hon. Friend at present has no power to collect information about schemes of this kind? In view of the recent promising and encouraging extension of profit-sharing and co-partnership, and even of pension schemes, would it not be desirable for my right hon. Friend to seek these powers at the first convenient opportunity? Would they not be of interest and value to him?

Mr. Butler: I am not quite clear what sort of powers my hon. Friend has in mind. Certainly the more interest I can take in this subject, and the more information I can acquire, the happier I shall be.

Rating Valuation (Houses)

Mr. Houghton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the valuation office of the Inland Revenue Department has now completed the revaluation of dwellinghouses under the provisions of Section 2 of the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953; or what proportion of the work remains to be done.

Mr. R. A. Butler: A small proportion remains to be done.

Mr. Houghton: Is it not a matter of concern to the right hon. Gentleman that so much of this work has been done and yet the new valuation lists are not due to appear until 1st April, 1956? What becomes of all this talk of economies in the staff of the Civil Service if the valuation office is standing still, waiting for the day on which the new valuation lists are to appear?

Mr. Butler: Again, it is not quite so simple as the hon. Member puts it. As my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Defence said on 11th March, these was no time for the legislation in that particular Session. As regards the administration, although a small proportion remains to be done, there are still some very difficult aspects to finish. As we want this job done thoroughly, I am not in quite the state of alarm which the hon. Member imagines.

St. Lawrence Seaway (British Participation)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what British participation has so far been arranged either by investment or by the placing of contracts or supply of materials in the St. Lawrence Seaway project.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Approval has been given for a number of British contractors and civil engineering firms to establish subsidiaries in Canada, and they will, no doubt, tender for contracts when the opportunity arises. Up to the present time, I believe, only one contract has been offered, and this was awarded to a Canadian firm. With regard to investment, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on 9th March this year.

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether British firms are competing on equal terms with Canadian or American firms for contracts of this sort, or are they hindered by regulations of the Canadian or American Governments, or by restrictions which our own Government place upon them?

Mr. Butler: The situation is rather complicated in regard to the actual rules in relation to investment, but I can give the hon. Member a separate answer, if he so desires.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not the best assurance the continuance of the present policy which, over the last three years, has resulted in Canadian investments by the United Kingdom multiplying themselves four or five times?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Dividend Distribution

Mr. Hay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give guidance to trading companies as to the amount of profits they should distribute to ensure that action will not be taken against them under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1952.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The question whether a company has made a reasonable distribution of income must depend on the facts of the particular case and is not one on which I could give general guidance. I am, however, sending my

hon. Friend a copy of a statement made by the late Sir Stafford Cripps on 22nd July, 1948, which sets out the present practice in relation to one-man trading companies whose dividends for periods ended before June, 1947, were accepted by the Special Commissioners as reasonable. If after my hon. Friend has read the statement, he has any other point to raise, perhaps he would write to me.

Mr. Hay: I have already seen the statement, and I can save my right hon. Friend the trouble of sending me a copy. Does not the fact that that statement was made as long ago as 1948, and that developments have since taken place, including the policy of dividend limitation, make it necessary now for some fresh guidance to be given, especially to what are called one-man trading companies? Will my right hon. Friend consider making such a statement?

Mr. Butler: I am ready to consider any new aspect of this matter arising under Section 245. If my hon. Friend or his colleagues have any further information to send me, they had better send it.

Investment Allowances (Shipping and Shipbuilding)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the new investment allowances have given sufficient assistance to the shipping and shipbuilding industries to maintain the British Merchant Marine in the face of present taxation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The question whether adequate finance will be available in the future for the maintenance of the British Merchant Marine must depend on many factors, but the investment allowances should be of substantial help.

Mr. Grimond: Is it not the case that, in spite of investment allowances, the British Merchant Marine is getting older, and also forms a smaller proportion of world tonnage? Does the Chancellor regard this as an inevitable tendency, or is it due to the failure of shipping companies to accumulate sufficient reserves or to invest?

Mr. Butler: As we know, the shipping industry has had quite a difficult time, but since last April the British Merchant


Marine has increased by 330,000 gross tons. While that increase cannot be attributed to one cause, it is a sign that things are developing, although there are difficulties in the long-term future.

Sir L. Ropner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that so long as taxation upon British shipping companies remains at a higher level than that upon foreign competitors, those competitors are bound to establish a lead?

Mr. Butler: That is why the shipping industry so much welcomes provision for relief from taxation, especially that contained in my last Budget.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the amount of British tonnage in the past year, to which he has referred, is largely due to increasing tanker tonnage, and not to tramp and medium cargo-ship tonnage? Will he give consideration to the whole position of the British Merchant Marine, in view of what may happen in the next few years?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the latter part of that supplementary question is, "Yes, Sir," and the answer to the first part is that I believe it largely reflects the increase in tanker tonnage.

Income Tax (Submarine Crews)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to exempt from Inland Revenue claims the extra 1s. a day granted to sailors serving on Her Majesty's submarines.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Thomas: Does the Chancellor not realise that there is a great deal of feeling, in view of the fact that this 1s. a day is granted to these men in recognition of the extra discomforts and hardships of the submarine service? When they have been at sea for 21 days they are entitled to 21s., but they receive 15s. Does not he think that that is rather mean?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this type of allowance is made not only to men in the submarine service but also to those in the

Fleet air arm? The point is not that it should be exempt from Income Tax, but that it should be at a different level, commensurate with the civilian equivalent, and of a higher order.

Mr. Butler: That is precisely one of the difficulties in this case. An allowance on account of the dangerous nature of a person's job is not confined to the submarine service. With regard to the necessity for paying adequate hard-lying money—as it is called in this case—in respect of submarine crews, I should not like to interfere with the discretion of the Admiralty.

Higher Technological Education, Wales

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to announce his plans for the development of higher technological education in Wales.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I cannot yet add to the statement which I made to the House on 13th July.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Chancellor aware that he said nothing then about his plans? Is he further aware that his studied disregard for Welsh interests is being noted, and that Welsh authorities are getting together with a view to submitting regional plans in regard to technological education in the Principality? Will he at least promise not to hinder them in their work?

Mr. Butler: The taxpayer may be surprised when he sees the magnitude of the total scheme for the development of technological education which we have in mind. I am sorry that the hon. Member and his friends from Wales should have to wait, but I am making a further statement which will give a broader picture than that which I gave before. In this matter I have to work in conjunction with the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of his financial administration Wales—nd especially its industrial areas—s more prosperous than it has ever been? Nevertheless, will he bear in mind that there is some substance in what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) says about the need for technological education in Wales, and will he do his best to expedite that matter?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It is precisely because of the increased buoyancy that we need further technological development.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Chancellor's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Post-War Credits

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation providing for the repayment of post-war credits within a month of application to those who produce medical certificates of serious illness and who are unable to return to work.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I will consider this and other matters affecting post-war credits at the appropriate time, but I cannot give any undertaking.

Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the only difficulty in dealing with this matter is that of drawing a line and defining hardship, does not the proposal contained in this Question indicate a method by which the problem could be dealt with satisfactorily? Will the Chancellor look at it again and, if there is a doubtful case, always give the recipient the benefit of the doubt?

Mr. Butler: I said that I would consider this and other matters at the appropriate time, and that I will do.

Mr. Shurmer: In view of the concession made by the Chancellor this year to a small section of the community—ho very much appreciated it—ill the right hon. Gentleman consider the whole question of taxation and try to give more sections of the community some concession in regard to post-war credits?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member's question will have the same consideration as the original Question.

Fixed Incomes

Captain Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he now has any new proposals to make regarding sections of the community living on fixed incomes; and in particular on the position of retired Service officers.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have the interests of these sections of the community at

heart, but I have no special statement to make in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend say how much it would cost to equalise the pre-1950 pensions with the present rates? Does not he think that, in fairness to a body of men who risked life and limb for the State, this equalisation should be carried out as early as possible?

Mr. Butler: I have not got the figures, but I will find them for my hon. and gallant Friend. Otherwise, for the statement of Government policy in this matter, he had better refer to Command Paper 9092. I would draw his attention particularly to paragraphs 36 and 44, which set out the Government's attitude in this matter.

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that between the wars retired officers had their pensions reduced when the cost of living went down? Their case today is that they have never had them raised adequately to meet the rise in the cost of living.

Mr. Butler: There are many complexities in this subject. That is why it is set out in the very comprehensive White Paper. I am aware of the adjustments that have taken place.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at Margate last year the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that attention would be given to the small income groups? Will he bear in mind that I am still waiting for the implementation of the pledge given on that occasion, and that I do not want to have to wait much longer.

Mr. Butler: I will study my hon. Friend's interpretation of the statement made by my right hon. Friend.

Nationalised Industries Oversea Purchases)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the recent decisions of the National Coal Board to buy German colliery equipment costing more than £00,000, despite British manufacturers having tendered competitive prices and approximately equal deliveries, and to buy heavy opencast mining machinery in the United States of


America notwithstanding Messrs. Ran-some and Rapier, of Ipswich, having offered equivalent British machinery on competitive terms, and also the proposal of the British Overseas Airways Corporation to purchase for dollars, United States DC-7D airliners for trans-Atlantic routes, in preference to Bristol Britannia aircraft, what steps he is taking to assure, by exchange control means or otherwise, that the nationalised industries pursue a policy calculated to maintain British industrial prestige and interests upon international markets by buying British.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Government's policy is that the nationalised industries should be guided by normal commercial considerations in their purchasing policy, subject only to such restrictions as are necessary to protect the balance of payments.

Mr. Nabarro: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that the foreigner believes that the policy of British nationalised industries is inspired and endorsed by Her Majesty's Government, and that the practice which is developing, of nationalised industries purchasing large quantities of expensive engineering equipment—and now aircraft—oversea, is undermining British industrial prestige oversea, affecting our export trade, and having a very adverse effect upon our prospects? Cannot my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—without interfering with the autonomy——

Mr. Shurmer: On a point of order. In view of the desirability of short supplementary questions, would it not be desirable for Questions to be short also? This Question takes in four matters.

Mr. Speaker: I am always against prolixity.

Mr. Nabarro: Cannot my right hon. Friend, without interfering with the autonomy enjoyed by the nationalised industries, influence their policy to buy British?

Mr. Butler: The answer to my hon. Friend is that he is exaggerating the extent of these purchases. Naturally, the preference should be given, if possible, to British goods, but there is one case here of some machinery for a pithead at Kinneil in West Lothian, and another case of DC-7D aircraft for B.O.A.C. On that matter I would refer him to the

debate of 15th November, from which he will see that the matter is not quite as he has put it. There is the third matter, depending on the relative delivery dates of the British firms and the foreign firms. I cannot interfere when it is a question of an open general licence, unless it is a matter affecting the balance of payments.

Mr. Stokes: I suppose it is hardly necessary for me to declare my interest in this Question, as it is stated in the Question, but may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in that case the fault did not lie with the National Coal Board but in the appalling dilatoriness of the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of Agriculture in coming to a decision as to which ground should be made available for opencast working? Is he aware that that is what we want to see hurried up?

Mr. Butler: As that is a matter relating to the activities and responsibilities of two of my colleagues, I should like to investigate it before replying further to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in refusing to bully the nationalised industries into paying more than they need, and in encouraging them to serve the consumers to the best advantage, he has the support of this side of the House?

Mr. Butler: Yes, but I would point out that while I have stated Government policy, which, I think, should remain as it is, there is undoubtedly anxiety on these matters. For example, they were raised recently at a meeting of the National Advisory Productivity Council for Industry. Therefore we have to investigate them to see that there is absolute fairness, and that in turn makes our rule all the more fair.

Floods (Insurance Scheme)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the periodic disasters which through the vagaries of the weather are causing distress and loss to country and town dwellers alike; and whether he is now prepared to consider an insurance scheme to provide for immediate relief and ultimate compensation for victims of such calamities and not leave them to rely on the uncertain and unequal responses to public appeal; or if he will consider accepting Government responsibility.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, but I am satisfied that a Government insurance scheme would not be appropriate. The attitude of the House to the grave disasters which have from time to time afflicted the country is well known, but it would be a different matter to recognise in advance that a responsibility would rest on Her Majesty's Government whatever the scale or nature of the troubles might be.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that circumstances have changed, and that these days he himself collects about two-thirds of the profits of industry, so that many of the sources from which charity came are not so full as they used to be? If the Chancellor is going to collect large proportions of the profits of industry, should he not be prepared to accept some of the responsibilities that used to be accepted by people who gave money to charity? Is he not aware that damage to people's houses by some of these floods is just as serious as was war damage, and that the tragedy is just as serious for the people concerned, although it does not always arouse equal public sympathy?

Mr. Butler: In the end the State comes along and does its duty. The difficulty of carrying out the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that we have to see so far ahead and over so very wide a realm, some of which is that of private insurance, whereas war damage lay in the realm of what I might call national insurance. That is why I cannot adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, though I see its value.

Mr. Bottomley: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider combination of Government action with public spiritedness by putting a ½d. extra on postage stamps? Would he consider something of that kind?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Butler: That is a very valuable suggestion, which I will discuss with the Postmaster-General.

Social Services (Expenditure)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of all social services for the year ended October, 1951, and October, 1954, respectively.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Comprehensive figures of social service expenditure are available only for financial years, and the latest are those given in the Monthly Digest of Statistics for May, 1954. These show consolidated current expenditure (net) by all public authorities in Great Britain as £1,471 million in 1949–50 and £1,865 million in 1952–53; corresponding figures for capital expenditure including housing, were £327 million in 1949–50 and £463 million in 1952–53.

Mr. Osborne: Does not the increase from £1,471 million to £1,865 million distributed to individuals more than compensate for the loss of the purchasing power of the pound? Is there not more real value in the social services?

Mr. Butler: I think that the taxpayer is apt to underestimate the greater value of the social services to him or her personally in assessing how well off he or she is.

Mr. Jay: Do the figures the Chancellor has given include food subsidies? It they are excluded, does not that make the picture rather different?

Mr. Butler: I should not like to give a snap answer to that question, but I will inform the right hon. Gentleman whether they do or not.

Steel Industry (Denationalisation)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made to date by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in denationalising the steel industry; and what part of the total British iron and steel industry, expressed both as a percentage of total capacity, and in capacity tons per annum, remains still to be denationalised at the latest convenient date.

Mr. R. A. Butler: With the sale of the ordinary shares of Dorman Long and Company, 16 undertakings and their 146 subsidiaries will have ceased to be publicly-owned or controlled. In the aggregate these companies account for about one-half of the activities carried on by the companies which were nationalised. The products of all these companies are not, of course, identical, and it would be misleading to try to express this statement in terms of output of a single type.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not this very satisfactory progress, and are the results which my right hon. Friend has just announced not an earnest of the confidence of the British electorate in the future prospects of the Government?

Mr. Butler: The answer, in general, is yes.

Mr. Gaitskell: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how much more is now to be paid in dividends and interest to the new shareholders, as compared with what was paid under nationalisation?

Mr. Butler: I have not those figures available.

Tobacco Tokens

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of granting the cheap tobacco concession to all people living on superannuation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have no figures on which to form such an estimate.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Chancellor aware that there is real discontent because people on small pensions are not allowed the little concession of cheaper tobacco? Will he consider this matter to see if he can help in these cases?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member asked me a Question about figures. I would rather not give him an answer on policy, except to say that this concession, as my predecessors, even those on the other other side of the House, know, is by no means a small concession. It is a very considerable concession, and one which is very difficult to administer.

Industrial Investment

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to measure the effects of the investment allowances provided in the Finance Act, 1954, upon the rate of industrial investment; how far the increase in industrial investment, since the last Budget, is commensurate with the increases in savings of all kinds; and whether he will now make a statement upon the savings and investment position that has developed since the spring of 1954.

Mr. R. A. Butler: On the first and second parts of the Question, I have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave last week to the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) in relation to current rates of investment in plant and machinery in industry. On the third part of the Question, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the next annual national income White Paper and economic survey.

Pensions (Increase) Acts

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis the increases in pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Acts were calculated.

Mr. R. A. Butler: On the basis of relieving real hardship caused to those with small total incomes by severe falls in the value of money.

Miss Ward: Does this basis have the sort of relationship that the assessment of the purchasing power of money has in relation to old-age pensions and pensions drawn under the National Insurance Act? Is there no better basis than a generalisation, which does not seem helpful?

Mr. Butler: I think it was found helpful on the last occasion when increases were introduced.

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the Pensions (Increase) Acts now in operation have restored to the 1946 value the purchasing power of the pensions affected.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am afraid I cannot add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Lady on 16th November.

Miss Ward: Which made no sense at all, if my right hon. Friend will permit me to say so. Is he aware that in the opinion of a great many people treatment of the small income groups is far too "hitty and missy"? Does he not think that the Government should pay more attention to this matter? Will he bear in mind that I am hoping for some action to be taken when the Budget is introduced next year?

Mr. Butler: I will have a little exchange of information with my hon. Friend about the very sane and erudite


answer which I gave her in the first instance, and then we shall be able to see whether hope springs eternal.

University Academic Salaries (Increases)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes were made in the annual increments of lecturers and assistant lecturers under the new scale of academic salaries recently announced.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The additional funds which I shall ask Parliament to vote will provide for certain increases in basic salaries but not for any change in the rate of annual increments received by assistant lecturers and lecturers.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the main disappointment with the scales which he announced last week lies in this continued differentiation between pre-clinical and non-medical staff, not only in the increments but also in the basic salaries? Is the aware that some pre-clinical professors refuse to accept the additional amount to which they are entitled because they believe this differentiation to be unfair? In those circumstances, does he think that the differentiation can still be justified?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of anxieties, just as I was before these scales were brought out. In the circumstances I think they are about as fair as we can get. At any rate, I have accepted them and I propose to ask Parliament to vote the money to carry them through.

Mr. Marquand: Can the Chancellor tell us how these proposed salaries for lecturers in science compare with payments offered by industry in similar circumstances? Is there not a danger of the whole source of scientific personnel in this country drying up if sufficient payment is not made in schools and universities to scientific teachers?

Mr. Butler: These improvements have been introduced in the university scales, and I hope that they will slightly improve the position. Both in the case of schools, where the problem is also acute, and in the case of universities, there is competition from industry, which means that the situation concerning science teachers at both schools and universities is very difficult.

Mr. Woodburn: Is not the solution to enable more children who are capable of taking this type of course to come up through the ranks and fill these posts, instead of drifting into occupations where their talents are not fully used?

Mr. Butler: I think there is something to be said for that, and I will certainly bring it to the attention of the Minister of Education.

Capital Issues Committee

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to make a statement on the future of the Capital Issues Committee.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have nothing to add to the reply given on 4th November to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of the changed pattern and needs of the country, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is essential to make a change in this Capital Issues Committee? It has been under discussion and consideration for a long time. When does he hope to make the change which is so necessary and has been so long awaited?

Mr. Butler: I cannot at present give any date when I can make any statement.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Can the Chancellor tell us whether the Capital Issues Committee has in practice been rejecting any applications in recent months?

Mr. Butler: As the Economic Secretary pointed out in the previous exchange, the number of rejections is small, but there are rejections and I think there is a use for the Committee. As I have said, however, the matter is continually under review. I cannot make a further statement at present.

British Interests, Argentina (Transfer of Earnings)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in negotiations with the Argentine Government to permit sums earned by British interests to be remitted to this country.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Discussions are in progress and I regret that I cannot yet make a statement.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: What is the total sum now due by way of these remittances from Argentina to this country? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that in the negotiations now going on he will press to see that at long last the British investor in the Argentine gets a square deal?

Mr. Butler: The sum, I think, is about £7 million. We certainly want a square deal to result from these negotiations.

Death Duty (Value Appeals)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what consideration he has given to the proposal for a new appellate court or tribunal between the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the High Court for the purpose of hearing death duty value appeals from the commissioners' decision; and if he will make a statement.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): My right hon. Friend has this matter under consideration, but he is not at present in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Remnant: Will my hon. Friend ensure that during these considerations he does not allow objections by the legal profession to cloud his own clear view of the matter?

Mr. Brooke: I shall allow nobody to cloud my own clear view, but I would remind my hon. Friend that if it were to be decided to take any action of this kind it would have to await legislation in the Finance Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Requisitioned Property

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses are still under requisition; and if he will again press local authorities to give them up without further delay.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): About 64,000 houses and blocks of flats are still being held under requisition in England and Wales; and that is far too many. I am actively examining ways to

speed up the release of these properties. I am also considering a procedure to relieve cases of hardship among owners, who wish to be allowed to live in their own homes. I have invited the representatives of local authorities to meet me later this week to discuss this whole problem.

Sir I. Fraser: While thanking my right hon. Friend for what I think is the first satisfactory answer given in this connection since the war, may I ask him to expedite the matter, because it is one thing to take a man's house away in wartime and quite another to deprive him of its use, or the fruits of its use, for 10 years afterwards?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the Minister also take good care to see that there is no undue hardship to those who have been living in these premises, and that they are not merely pushed out without having any home to which they can go?

Mr. Sandys: I recognise that this problem cannot be solved overnight, especially in difficult areas, such as London, where the problem is particularly acute. At the same time, I feel that we must not allow requisitioning under war-time emergency powers to become a regular and normal element in our housing system.

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many properties remain under requisition by local authorities in Wales, in the county of Glamorgan and in the borough of Barry, respectively.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): The numbers are 19,162 and 1, respectively.

Mr. Gower: Does my hon. Friend anticipate that these properties will remain long in requisition?

Mr. Deedes: My hon. Friend will have heard the statement made earlier this afternoon by my right hon. Friend and will, I hope, be able to interpret it in a favourable sense.

Certificates of Disrepair

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will arrange for the Housing Return to include in future a statement of the number of certificates of disrepair given under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir. I would hesitate to enlarge the scope of the Housing Return, which is already a fairly voluminous document.

Mr. Morley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be very easy to get these figures from the local authorities, and that they would help to show whether the tenants were receiving benefit or not from the Housing Repairs and Rents Act?

Mr. Sandys: I think that there are other Questions on the Order Paper on that matter.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not very desirable that this information should be available so that we can see whether the Act is working as it was intended to work, and cannot the Minister call for this information at regular intervals?

Mr. Sandys: The first returns have not been received on this subject, and when I see them, I will consider in what form they could most conveniently be made available.

Buildings (Conversion to Flats)

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of the housing shortage in central London and the expanding office building programme, he will consider taking steps to encourage, by grant or otherwise, the conversion and return to residential use of houses in the Metropolitan boroughs which are now occupied by office users.

Mr. Sandys: Under the Housing Acts, grants are available to local authorities and property-owners to assist them in converting suitable buildings into flats.

Mrs. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that there seems to be some lack of understanding among owners of houses which are now rated as offices as to their eligibility for improvement grants, and will he try and make their position a little clearer?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Lady will realise that I have no powers to compel people to change the use to which they put their buildings.

Mr. K. Robinson: As the right hon. Gentleman is asked to encourage these local authorities, may I ask if he is aware

that the conversion of some of these office properties in the centre of London would make a real contribution towards solving the housing problem, which there is no chance whatever of solving at the present moment?

Mr. Sandys: So far as encouraging the local authorities is concerned, I would say that they have been encouraged in every possible way by circulars and other means to make use of these grants which are available, but local authorities do not possess large blocks of offices which they can convert into houses.

Programme

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) whether, in view of the housing shortage in the Hebburn Urban District Council area, he will reconsider his decision to limit to 120 the number of houses to be erected in 1955 by the local authority;
(2) if he is aware of the concern of local authorities with direct labour schemes that the reduced housing programmes which he has announced for local authorities for 1955 will lead to reducing and breaking up the labour force which has served them and their respective communities well; and whether he will give such authorities an assurance that their allocation of houses will be at least sufficient to allow full employment to be maintained for the men concerned.

Mr. Sandys: The principal regional officer of my Department discussed this matter with the representatives of the Hebburn Urban Distrct Council last week and I am awaiting his report. Similar difficulties which may arise in other areas will be examined in the same way with the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, provided the local authorities can make out their claims that they need higher allocations than were originally allowed them, they will be able to proceed? Can he give a further assurance that those local authorities which, after much effort, have built up a good direct labour scheme will not have to abandon their scheme because of the cut-down in the programme which the right hon. Gentleman recently announced?

Mr. Sandys: I have not announced any cut-down in any programme, and I can assure the hon. Member that the needs of all localities will be sympathetically considered.

Mr. Fernyhough: The Minister says that there has not been any cut-down, but is he not aware that it was stated that next year houses to rent, built by local authorities, would be limited to 150,000 and that the difference between 150,000 and the normal 200,000—[Interruption.]—200,000 to rent—will result in fewer houses to rent being built? Is he not aware that if it is to be left to private enterprise the housing problem will never be solved because private enterprise has not built 1 per cent. of the houses in that area since the war?

Mr. Sandys: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to send me a copy of any such statement.

Repairs and Rents Act

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the widespread public interest, if he will make a statement on the initial effect of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act in connection with the aim to check decay of older houses.

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the operation to date of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act in connection with the improvement of the state of controlled dwellinghouses.

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir, but not immediately.

Mr. Dodds: Since we have twice heard references to "shortly," will the right hon. Gentleman say how soon he expects to be able to make a statement, because some very authoritative statements are being made that the object of the Act is failing and that the older houses are not being put into decent repair?

Mr. Sandys: The Act has been in operation only a few months. It is, obviously, much too soon to judge its effects. If the hon. Member would care to put down a Question in, say, six months' time, I will consider what information can be given to him.

Mr. Morley: Did the Minister read the statement recently in the "News

Chronicle" that, in practice, the Act is. becoming a dead letter, because landlords are afraid to send in notices under the Act in case tenants should apply for and get certificates of disrepair? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the coming Session, introduce legislation to place all rented houses under municipal ownership, so that the repairs will be done?

Mr. Gower: Do not all these suggestions disprove the original allegations that the Act was a "landlords' ramp"?

Window Cleaners (Safety Equipment)

Mr. William Paling: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce regulations to provide that, in the construction of new buildings and, where possible, in existing buildings, provision shall be made for the use by window cleaners of-appropriate safety equipment.

Mr. Sandys: I am afraid I have no power to make such regulations.

Mr. Paling: Is the Minister aware of recent court and Court of Appeal decisions on the question of window cleaning and accidents arising therefrom? I know that this matter has received the attention of the Minister of Labour. In view of the court decisions, will the right hon. Gentleman have a talk with the Minister of Labour to see whether there is some way of meeting this suggestion, so that accidents may be prevented?

Mr. Sandys: I have great respect for people who can stand on narrow ledges high up on buildings without getting vertigo, and I should like to do anything I can to help them, but I have no powers to make the regulations which the hon. Member proposes.

Approved Tenders

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proportion of houses and flats, for which tenders were approved in the last quarter for which figures are available, were of one, two, three, four or more than four-bedroom types, respectively; and how these proportions compare with the same quarters of 1952 and 1953.

Mr. Deedes: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that he will do nothing to force local authorities, against their will, to build too many of

NEW DWELLINGS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND NEW TOWNS IN APPROVED TENDERS


—
1-bedroom
2-bedroom
3-bedroom
More than 3 bedrooms


Number
Percentage of total
Number
Percentage of total
Number
Percentage of total
Number
Percentage of total


3rd Quarter, 1952:










Houses
1,620
3·1
17,108
32·5
32,787
62·4
1,055
2·0


Flats
2,968
24·2
7,656
62·6
1,552
12·7
62
0·5


Houses and flats
4,588
7·1
24,764
38·2
34,339
53·0
1,117
1·7


3rd Quarter, 1953:










Houses
1,160
3·2
10,424
28·5
24,350
66·5
661
1·8


Flats
2,636
25·1
5,885
56·1
1,873
17·9
98
0·9


Houses and flats
3,796
8·1
16,309
34·6
26,223
55·7
759
1·6


3rd Quarter, 1954:










Houses
1,216
4·3
7,928
27·8
18,769
65·9
586
2·0


Flats
2,850
27·1
5,988
56·9
1,643
15·6
41
0·4


Houses and flats
4,066
10·4
13,916
35·7
20,412
52·3
627
1·6

Ineligible Families (Departmental Inquiry)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the Departmental inquiry into the problem of overcrowded families who for various reasons have not or cannot be placed on a local authority housing list will issue its report and recommendations.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him last week.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister appreciate that that reply was most inadequate, and that I am asking here for something more specific? Can he not say, for instance, when the inquiry will take place, and when the report will be issued? Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that meanwhile quite a number of people are suffering acutely and that they have no hope at all because they are in a no-man's land? Surely, something should be done more quickly to give them some hope.

the small houses against the very great need which still exists for houses with more bedrooms?

Mr. Deedes: Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance. I think that when the hon. Member examines the figures he will find his suggestion satisfactorily dealt with.

Following is the answer:

Mr. Sandys: The completion of the report does not rest with me. The sooner I receive it, the better I shall be pleased.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Signs, Audenshaw

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware of the resentment felt by elected members of the Audenshaw Urban District Council regarding his decision to allow appeals relating to planning application No. 19/3/A24, advertisement sign on land adjoining 214, Guide Lane, and planning application No. 19/3/A26, illuminated sign at Shepley Industrial Estate; and whether he will reverse his decision.

Mr. Deedes: No, Sir.

Mr. Williams: In thanking the Minister for that ridiculously inadequate reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the


local authority and the residents are doing their utmost to improve the amenities in this highly-industrialised part of Audenshaw, and that they are being greatly discouraged by the Minister's action in making this decision? May I appeal to him to ask his right hon.-Friend again to consider this matter, in order to encourage the local authority in doing the best it can for its own people?

Mr. Deedes: My right hon. Friend has no power now to alter the decision until fresh circumstances are produced. It remains with the local authority to make a fresh application in three years' time.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister be good enough to instruct his officials to go there again, to have another look at the situation in this area, and to discuss the matter with the authority and with others affected by the decision?

New Offices (Rating Valuation)

Mr. Houghton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the basis of fixing the gross value for rating purposes of new blocks of office buildings in England and Wales.

Mr. Deedes: The valuation officers of the Inland Revenue are at present valuing new blocks of office buildings by reference to the values of similar properties already entered in the valuation list for the particular area.

Mr. Houghton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is quite contrary to the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, which governs the determination of annual value of miscellaneous properties other than houses?

Mr. Deedes: Yes, that is true, but until revaluation is completed this is the fairest way of doing it, as I think the hon. Member, who has some knowledge of the subject, is aware.

Mr. Houghton: Will the hon. Member agree that it is not a question of fairness but a question of applying the Act of Parliament?

Town and Country Planning (Report)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) whether he will publish

annual statements classifying town and country planning appeals to the Minister in a form equivalent to that appearing in Table C in Command Paper No. 8204, the first of such statements to cover the years since 1951;
(2) whether, in view of the length of time which has elapsed since the last publication of the Bulletin of Selected Appeal Decisions in town and country planning matters, he will arrange to resume the publication of Minister's decisions in a suitable form;
(3) having regard to the decision announced on 19th January last to resume publication of annual reports on housing and town and country planning, when it is intended to issue such a report; and whether it will cover the years since 1951.

Mr. Sandys: I shall shortly be issuing a report which will cover the work of my Department during the years 1951 to 1954. The inclusion of the particulars for which the hon. Member asks is being considered.

Mr. Irvine: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when he says that he will "shortly" be issuing this report, it will be "very shortly," having regard to the fact that the decision to issue a report was announced 10 months ago, and that three years' material is missing? Is he further aware that, as present legislation is making planning permission a very valuable commodity, a study of the contents of the report is a matter of great consequence to a large number of people, and that it is very important that the information contained in the former bulletin published by the Department should be provided again in fuller form?

Mr. Sandys: I am sure that the report will be a most valuable one, and that there will be no undue delay.

Waterworks Code

Mr. Hay: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made in extending the provisions of the Waterworks Code contained in the Third Schedule to the Water Act, 1945; to how many water undertakers that code has been extended at the nearest convenient date; and to how many undertakers the code does not at present extend.

Mr. Deedes: Up to 31st July, 1953, the provisions of the whole of the Third Schedule had been extended, for all practical purposes, to 11 water undertakers and parts of these provisions to 34 water undertakers. The code had not, at that date, been extended to 369 water undertakings, though its provisions had been applied, in part, for the purposes of particular Orders, to a large number of these. Certain parts mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to the Act were, of course, extended generally to all 628 undertakings operating under the Public Health Act, 1936, by Section 31 of the 1945 Act.

Mr. Hay: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is not particularly rapid progress, and that so long as there is any uncertainty in the areas of the different water undertakers as to whether or not this particular code applies, the problem gets more and more difficult? Will he do all that he can to expedite the application of this code to all water undertakers as soon as he can?

Mr. Deedes: As my hon. Friend is perhaps aware, there have been certain difficulties in getting on with this matter faster, but these difficulties have now been cleared away, and we hope that fresh progress will be made very shortly.

Advertisements (Control Regulations)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that, under the present control of advertisement Regulations, advertisements consisting of red fluorescent tubing inside a hotel have been held to fall within the scope of the Regulations; and whether, in view of the desirability of allowing reasonable freedom in this connection, he will consider introducing amending Regulations at an early date.

Mr. Sandys: Provided that they are not visible from outside, there are no restrictions of any kind on signs displayed inside buildings.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is a good thing that hotels and restaurants should be allowed to illuminate themselves as much as they wish in order to add brilliance to their surroundings, and is that not all the more

appropriate now that we have passed o through the smog of Socialist gloom and incompetence and reached all the golden glory of Conservative achievement and the broad and sunny uplands that lie beyond?

Mr. Sandys: I have no wish to keep anybody's light under a bushel.

Development Plan, London

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how soon he expects to announce his decisions with regard to the London Development Plan.

Mr. Sandys: As soon as possible.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is 18 months since the end of this inquiry, and will he really try to do a bit better than his predecessor in this matter?

Mr. Sandys: There were 7,000 objections to this plan, the public inquiry itself lasted nine months and since the end of the inquiry the London County Council has submitted to the Government some 750 modifications. Consideration of all this has naturally taken some time.

Overspill Population, Walthamstow

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now announce the date of the public inquiry into the proposal to house Walthamstow's overspill population in Billericay and Wickford.

Mr. Deedes: Arrangements have been made for objections to two compulsory purchase orders made by Walthamstow Borough Council on land at Outwood Common, Billericay, to be heard at a public local inquiry in Billericay on the 15th December, 1954. No order relating to land at Wickford has yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Braine: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that my constituents affected by this scheme have been left in great doubt and uncertainty since July, and can he speed up the inquiry?

Mr. Deedes: This was the first date on which the inspector could be available, and, as I think my hon. Friend knows, the two orders were separated by some distance in time.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities are prepared to make improvement grants.

Mr. Deedes: Eight hundred and eighteen local authorities have approved applications made to them for these grants.

Mr. Braine: While the figures are most encouraging, would my hon. Friend consider publishing the names of those authorities which have so far declined to make such grants?

Mr. Deedes: I do not think that that would serve a useful purpose, but I will certainly see that it is considered.

Mr. Braine: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that it would serve a useful purpose in making plain to the people of this country that, despite Parliament having declared its will on this subject, there are local authorities which do not wish to put it into operation?

Mr. Deedes: My hon. Friend will bear in mind that the powers to make grants are permissive, and that my right hon. Friend continues to persuade those authorities which have not changed their attitude to consent to undertake these grants.

Compulsory Land Acquisition (Ex-Gratia Payments)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will extend to new town corporations the power to make ex gratia payments in cases where compulsory acquisition of land would cause hardship because no claim for loss of development value exists.

Mr. Sandys: New town corporations have no less powers than any local authority to make ex gratia payments in such circumstances.

Exchequer Equalisation Grant

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement regarding the distribution of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant, in view of the postponement of revaluation.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper on this subject which was presented to the House by my predecessor two months ago, to which I have nothing at present to add.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware that several very important local authorities, including Newcastle-upon-Tyne, get nothing under the Exchequer Equalisation Grant owing to the delay in revaluation? Can he not press his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make financial arrangements to ease the position of such local authorities until revaluation takes place?

Mr. Sandys: I am quite ready to consider sympathetically any proposals for the redistribution of equalisation grant which may be agreed by local authorities.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister not aware that there is little or no hope of getting local authorities to agree on this matter? Is not the only prospect to try to secure some slightly increased funds from the Chancellor to make it possible to meet the needs of these authorities, as has been done, I believe, in Scotland?

Mr. Sandys: That possibility has not yet been considered.

Councillors (Travelling Expenses)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will amend the Local Government Act, 1948, so as to allow for a refund of travelling expenses of local councillors within their areas from their homes for attendance at county or town halls or other necessary administrative places in the course of their duties.

Mr. Sandys: I am looking into this problem with a view to forming an opinion as to whether a change in the present arrangement is desirable.

Mr. Parker: Will the Minister bear in mind that increased fares are a heavy burden on many people taking part in public life at the present time?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, I well realise that.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR POLLUTION, NORTH-WEST KENT

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if the Beaver Committee on Air Pollution have yet given consideration to the cement dust nuisance in north-west Kent; and with what result.

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. The Committee's conclusions are contained in its report, which will be published very shortly.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this information, if it is to be helpful, will be received with great relief by hundreds and thousands of people in north-west Kent, and can he say how soon will "shortly" be, and will there be some relief from this menace?

Mr. Sandys: I said "very shortly" and I mean a matter of days.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROPERTIES, BRIXTON (REPAIRS)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

LIEUT.-COLONEL LIPTON: To ask the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for administering the slum properties in Brixton, and elsewhere, now owned by the Crown as the result of a decision by the Court of Appeal in the case of Morelle Limited versus Water-worth; and to what address tenants and local authorities should write if repairs to these properties are needed.

Mr. Speaker: Lieut.-Colonel Lipton.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of order. The Prime Minister usually does hon. Members the courtesy of letting them know whether he will be in his place to answer Questions, thus providing hon. Members with an opportunity of transferring Questions to another day. On this occasion, I received no such intimation. May I therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you would consider that I am entitled, if I so wish, to defer my Question to another day when the Prime Minister will be present?

Mr. Speaker: I have nothing to do with the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's statement, but he is too late now to have his Question transferred.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I have been asked to reply.
The Crown has not taken possession of any of this property and does not at present propose to do so. It is hoped that the validity of the court's decision will be tested in legal proceedings in the near future. In the meanwhile inquiries about the property should be addressed to the Treasury Solicitor.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Lord President of the Council give an assurance that the Crown will not be as elusive and slippery as the previous landlord of these properties, Arthur Bertram Waters? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Crown is now breaking the law by refusing to carry out its legal obligations as landlord, as laid down by the three very learned and distinguished judges in the Court of Appeal? Why are the Government flouting that decision?

Mr. Crookshank: I am not the Lord President of the Council, but if the hon. and gallant Member wants him to know about this, I will see that he is also informed. Meanwhile, I have nothing to add to the careful statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in reply to the hon. and gallant Member in the Adjournment debate on 1st November.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is at present a case sub judice and that proceedings have been commenced to upset the finding of the Court of Appeal? If not, will he explain why the Crown is not performing the obligation under the Rent Acts to provide a rent book to tenants? Assuming that the Crown does not fulfil its obligations, will the right hon. Gentleman take proceedings to fine or send anyone to prison for this failure in accordance with the terms of the Rent Acts?

Mr. Crookshank: I hope that the hon. Member will study not only the very careful reply which I have given on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but also the recent debate to which I have referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — DORNEYWOOD (USE)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister what use is to be made of Dorneywood, given to the nation by Lord Courtauld-Thomson.

Mr. Crookshank: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend cannot make a statement at present since, as was announced yesterday on behalf of Lord Courtauld-Thomson's executors, some aspects of this matter are at present sub judice.

Mr. Grimond: Have the Government come to any decision as to whether they would accept in principle this most generous gift from Lord CourtauldThomson, subject to clearing up the legal difficulties, or is it possible that the intention may fail completely and that the gift may have to be refused?

Mr. Crookshank: My right hon. Friend felt that he could not make any statement on this subject owing to the circumstances which have arisen.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Christopher Wyborne Armstrong, Esquire, for Armagh.

RAILWAYS REORGANISATION SCHEME

3.31 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move,
That the Draft British Transport Commission (Organisation) Scheme Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.
The House will recall that the railway reorganisation scheme as set out in an appendix to the White Paper was debated during a full day's debate in the House on 1st November and was debated in another place on the following day. That debate took place in accordance with the undertakings given during the passage of the 1953 Act on a Motion to take note, and it was understood, and, indeed, laid down by that Act that after that debate had taken place it would be for the Government to present a draft of the order and submit it for approval to the House. We have now reached the stage at which it is necessary to submit the order for approval, and the procedure to be followed is that this Motion, if this House and another place approve it, will be followed by the making of the necessary statutory instrument.
The purpose of the debate in this House on 1st November and the debate which took place in another place was to allow expressions of opinion to be made in all quarters of the House before the scheme was finally crystallised in a statutory instrument. Therefore, I hope it does not need to be said that my right hon. Friends and I have carefully considered the debates which took place in both Houses before presenting this scheme.
I think it is a fair interpretation and summary of the debates which took place in both Houses to say that the general feeling was that what mattered about these proposals was not the admitted flexible framework of the scheme and, indeed, of the order, but the spirit and intention with which that scheme would be operated. In those circumstances, with one exception to which I will refer in a moment, it did not seem to me, when reading the debates in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that it was desirable to amend the scheme which had been tabled as an appendix to the White Paper. As I said,


this is admittedly no more than the framework, and it is the way in which the scheme is operated that matters.
The one exception is this. The paragraph in the scheme, No. 9 (1), which relates to the provision of information about operating costs and statistics was subject to a certain amount of criticism on the grounds that it was desirable that the fullest statistics should be made available so as to indicate whether or not each of the regions when set up was pulling its weight. The difficulty of providing statistics which would really effectively do that was, I think, fully understood on both sides of the House. As I said in winding up an earlier debate, the British Transport Commission has appointed a technical committee which is at present engaged in working out what statistics it would be possible to give which really would have this effect.
A little anxiety was expressed as to whether or not the fact that under the scheme the onus of providing the statistics lay, in the first place, on the Transport Commission with the approval of the Minister, would necessarily result in proper statistics being supplied. I do not think that anybody doubts the desire of the Commission to provide all the information which it properly can, but it is also better, if possible, to put into a scheme provisions which can quite clearly indicate what it is intended should happen.
As a consequence I have added, in paragraph 9 (1), the words "after consultation with" before reference to the approval of the Minister. By bringing in the Minister at that stage this House is given further direct contact at the formative stage of the provisions, and I assume it will be possible, as the Minister is to be consulted in this case, that he can be interrogated on appropriate occasions as to what he has done. Those words are added to make it perfectly clear and to make sure that the Minister comes into the picture in the preparation of these statistics, and through the Minister the responsibility of this House arises.
As I have said, otherwise this scheme is as was presented as an appendix to the White Paper. I do not want further to repeat what I or my hon. Friend said in the course of the previous debate. If

I did, I think I should weary the House, but if further points arise in the course of this afternoon's debate my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will seek to deal with them. The House would not expect or wish me to traverse much of the ground which we traversed during the full day's debate on 1st November.
I was very glad—and this I think is a point of major importance—that in that debate the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) indicated from the Front Bench opposite that the party opposite shared our view in as much as they favoured decentralisation and devolution. I was very glad to hear that because, as I said in the debate on 1st November, that means that the area of dispute in this matter is narrowed down not to the question of whether there should be decentralisation and devolution, but to the much narrower point of whether the particular methods suggested in this scheme for securing those ends were best calculated to secure them. As I understood, the difference in our last debate was of means and not of end.
It is true that in that debate an hon. Member opposite indicated that his party might feel it necessary, when we came to this Order, to vote against it. That is a matter for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I hope they will acquit me of impertinence if I express the hope that, if that be their intention, they will even now be prepared to reconsider it. I believe it is the right method of settling a dispute, when we really differ on principles, that we should go into the Lobby in opposition to proposals which, root and branch, we dislike but, as we are here concerned only with questions of method, only with whether this is the right method of doing what we all want to do, it would be a pity if, at this stage of the proceedings, it became inevitable to involve this matter in the degree of party and political controversy which arises from a party division on an order of this kind.
Having said that, I would like to seek to deal with what I think is in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the methods. I believe that what worries them about this scheme is the setting up, and use of, area boards. It is true that the Act of 1953 leaves open the question


as to whether the area authority should be an individual or a board. It is true, also, that after some thought my right hon. Friends and I have come to the view that the board is the better alternative of the two. Perhaps, therefore, I should say a word or two as to why we have come to this conclusion, and why I suggest to the House that it is better than setting up an individual authority.
A board can serve several valuable purposes in this connection and, in particular, in the support it can give to that much-tried and hard-worked individual, the chief regional manager. If properly constituted, a board can give him great help by allowing him to draw on a variety of experience, a good deal of it from outside the transport industry, but in close contact with what is happening in the regional area concerned.
As I said in the earlier debate, it is the intention of the Transport Commission to appoint to these boards people of standing in their areas, with understanding of the feelings of people in those areas and of their needs. I suggest to the House that, looking at this from the point of view of what is the best method of carrying out this scheme, such a board composed of such people would be of great practical use to the chief regional manager. It can guide him, for example, on the public reaction to proposals. The House knows that transport activities impinge directly on the lives and wellbeing of the people concerned. Therefore, it is useful that those who, on a regional basis, have to administer this great scheme should have working with them and helping them a body of men who have a wide general knowledge of the needs and feelings of the locality. That is the first point.
Equally, it seems to me that it would be of value to the chief regional manager to have a board of this kind when he is dealing with the Transport Commission. If he has the backing of such a board, it must carry considerable weight if they and he, on a matter which may be in dispute or in discussion, feel the same about the needs of the area which they serve. Again, a board vis-à-vis the public, vis-à-vis the chief regional manager, and vis-à-vis the central Commission can play, if it is properly selected, a useful and valuable part. So I think that the area authorities will be stronger

if they are based, as they are proposed to be, on boards, than if they had consisted of a single individual.

Mr. James Harrison: Will these new boards in any way trespass on the ground of the area consultative committees?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No. Those committees were set up originally under the Act of 1947 and there is no proposal to alter their responsibility nor, in particular, the fact that, through the Central Transport Consultative Committee they have the right to put matters to the Minister and, if necessary, to ask the Minister to exercise his powers under the Act. No, the boards certainly will not interfere with that, and I am sure that both sides of the House would not want it.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): But could not the area consultative committees give to the chief regional manager all the information to which the Minister has referred, as regards the needs of the locality and area, because they are resident there and know everything about it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Gentleman confuses two different functions. The transport users consultative committees are most useful bodies, and could be even more useful if the public would use them more. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they are widely constituted but, in the nature of things, being composed of busy people, they do not meet many times in the year, nor can they and their members be expected to have the regular reading of the necessary documents and the necessary contact required for a board. The functions are quite distinct. They are both useful and neither overlaps the other. I do not think that the need for boards of this kind is abolished because the consultative committees could be used even more than they are.

Mr. Walter Monslow: Would not the Minister agree that power is not vested in the boards, but that they are under the jurisdiction of the Transport Commission?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the scheme he will see how power is divided between


the two. In particular, he will see that power is delegated under Article 5 of the draft order in respect of a number of important matters. The most important of all is the first one, the management of the railways. It is a mistake to say that, because the ultimate authority lies with the Commission—as it must because financial responsibility lies through the Commission and through the Minister with Parliament—the large measure of delegation proposed in this scheme is anything but a very real and very important thing.
The value of these boards turns on who is appointed to them. The House will recall that these appointments are made not by the Minister, but by the Transport Commission. That is a sound proposal and I think I can say without being controversial that in the hands of the present chairman of the Commission the House can be quite sure that these appointments will be sensibly and responsibly made.
As the House knows, it is not proposed to appoint to these boards members specifically representing particular interests and particular capacities. That point was discussed at some length during the earlier debate and I do not want to go over the ground again. However, I will say that there are bodies set up from time to time—the consultative committees to which reference has been made are a good case in point—on which it is most valuable to have people specifically representing the different aspects of our national life.
However, I suggest that these boards, which are here to do a particular job in respect of the delegated area administration of the railways, are much better selected on the grounds of the personal quality of the persons selected than on the basis of their being representative of any interests, however important. I think they will be able to do the job, which we all want to see them do, more effectively if they are there with a sole responsibility to the administration of their area board, rather than with a responsibility to outside interests, however important.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: Would the Minister say what are the qualifications expected of the part-time people to serve on the board?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The qualifications are that they should be people of good general knowledge, common sense, with knowledge of the locality and with experience of various aspects of our national life.
I think that this was explained in the earlier debate. They are just the sort of people who are on innumerable bodies set up by this House and appointed by successive Governments. We need not get excited about this. It is very much in the interest of the British Transport Commission, which makes the appointment, to secure the best men that it can. Surely we need not be alarmed that the Commission will do other than try to obtain the type of person whom I have attempted to describe and whom I think very suitable for this job.

Mr. Popplewell: We are extremely interested in this question. When we asked the Minister previously what power the boards would have, he suggested that it might be on questions of general overhaul of engines or the permanent way or in connection with timetables. The terms of the appointment of these boards are that they are to deal with questions of management. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell the House exactly what the duties of the boards will be? Before we approve this order, it is essential that the House should have some indication of the duties which will fall to people who are not versed in transport undertakings.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member knows that it is a very usual principal of administration to appoint to boards of one sort or another people who are not necessarily experts or professionals in the industry concerned. The experts and professionals are there and I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that in the regional organisation of the railways some very fine and expert people are to be found. There is nothing unique or particularly unusual about this arrangement. These people are appointed to perform a good many of the general functions of management.
I gave one or two examples to the House on 1st November, and I do not think that it is useful to go on multiplying examples, because they will have to deal with the general delegated management of the railways and the other matters which are referred to in Article 5 of the


draft order in an ordinary and commonsense way. They will perform these duties in exactly the same way as, for example, within their areas and subject to the different Acts under which they operate, the area boards of nationalised industries set up under Acts for which hon. and right hon. Members opposite were responsible carry out their duties.
The question has been raised whether the chain of command will be broken. There is the Transport Commission at the top and the chain of command runs from that to the area board and from the board to the chief regional manager. The chief regional manager, and, if necessary, the specialists on his staff, will deal with their opposite numbers at the Commission's headquarters on technical matters and the ordinary running of administration, but the actual chain of command will run from the Commission to the area board. There is a very close analogy between that and the ordinary system of an Army command where the chain runs from army commander to corps commander and corps commander to divisional commander, but those who have the actual decisions to make are in constant touch with each other in accordance with their staff duties.

Mr. James Callaghan: They are responsible to an army commander and not to a committee of generals.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether by that the hon. Member means that he would like the Transport Commission itself to be abolished and turned into a single individual. If that is where the hon. Member's argument seems to be leading, it is a remarkable suggestion from an hon. Member who was associated with the setting up of the Commission.

Mr. Callaghan: And one I did not make.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Commission takes the place of the G.O.C.-in-C. In this context, I think that it rightly takes his place and I do not see why anyone would wish to alter that arrangement at the top.

Mr. Popplewell: Do I understand the Minister to say that instructions will pass down from the Commission to the area

boards, from the secretary of the Commission possibly to the secretaries of the area boards, to be transferred to the area regional managers? Is that to replace the present system, which gives the regional manager direct access to the board?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The formal instructions that follow on the analogy which I gave of the chain of command will pass in that way, but I went out of my way to say that the chief regional manager would be in contact on a staff basis with his opposite number. Indeed, his own staff will be in touch with the headquarters of the Commission in precisely the way in which I have described. I do not think that any difficulty will arise in that way. The House will be interested to know the timetable which it is proposed to follow with regard to this organisation.

Mr. David Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a word or two about Article 7 of the scheme, what the additional authorities within the area authorities are to do and what part they are to play in the general set-up?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that I can add much to what I said in winding up the debate on 1st November. The hon. Member will recall that when that point was raised I indicated that there was no present intention to exercise the power provided by the article to set up an authority, but that in respect of the wagons pool it might well be convenient to do so in the future. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that questions of internal organisation of that sort might be provided for in the Scheme and should not require the submission of a separate scheme to Parliament. It is a necessary part of the flexibility which we all agree is the merit of the scheme.

Mr. Jones: Are we to understand that, after mature consideration by the Commission and the right hon. Gentleman, the conclusion has been reached that one cannot have a central wagon pool without setting up a part-time board to manage it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No one has come to that conclusion. When the hon. Member was good enough to intervene, I said that there was no present intention to set up such an authority, but that experience in the future might indicate that to be desirable.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Did the right hon. Gentleman say, "Good enough?"

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, I said when the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) was good enough to intervene—because I like his interventions. I think that sometimes he likes mine.
As regards the timetable, if the House approves the order and another place approves it this week the order will be made almost immediately. On that basis the Commission tells me that it hopes to be able to announce simultaneously the initial composition of the area boards. While the Commission would not wish to commit itself formally to so doing, it hopes to make that announcement next month. That initial announcement would not cover the full seven members which, under the scheme, can be appointed to each board. It is the Commission's intention to start the boards on a smaller numerical basis with a view to adding from time to time suitable people by way of further members. The Commission, however, tells me that it sees no reason to expect to have to ask me for permission under Article 4 (3) for an extension of the three months' period within which the authorities will be set up.
This scheme has been subjected to a very healthy process of Parliamentary analysis and discussion by both Houses and outside and in the Press. It is put forward as being one of the three major steps designed to assist our railways to improve and stabilise their position in the very difficult circumstances which now face the railways of all countries.
As the House knows, proposals with respect to railway charges are likely to go before the tribunal in the near future and proposals in respect of railway modernisation are at present before the Commission. Those two items and this which is now before the House, are part and parcel of efforts sincerely and honestly made—after a great deal of hard thought and consideration—to get our railways into the state in which they can successfully cope with the very severe problems, financial and otherwise, that face them.
This scheme is put forward with that purpose in view and I believe that it will help towards that purpose and be one of the three necessary components of the new

approach to railway management and organisation in this century.

Mr. Popplewell: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with a point on which he has not touched at all—the rates of remuneration for these boards? Many of us are rather suspicious and think that this is a case of "jobs for the boys." We ought to be told what is the rate of remuneration. Surely the Minister must have some knowledge of how the payment is to be made.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Where appointments are made by the Minister—that is, of members of the Commission or the London Transport Executive—under the present system it is right and proper that in the necessary legislation the salaries to be paid should be stated. As the House knows, they are stated in a White Paper. It is not the practice—nor do I think it would be desirable—where appointments are made by the Commission, either in respect of boards such as these or of senior officers, for statements to be made as to proposed remuneration. That, essentially, is a matter for the Commission and certainly not one with which I am equipped to deal today.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Minister has spoken most persuasively this afternoon in presenting this Order to us in his usual amicable way, which contrasts very strongly with what we were used to in the old days when he was in opposition. Sometimes I feel that in the old days he was a little more convincing than he is when he uses this persuasive tone.
Quite rightly, this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman concentrated on whether the boards which are proposed in this draft Order are the best means of securing the decentralisation of the organisation and administration of railways which we, on both sides of the House, desire to come about to the extent to which that is considered necessary. I have re-read the debate of 1st November and, having listened to the right hon. Gentleman again this afternoon, I—and, I am sure, my hon. Friends—are still completely unconvinced of the necessity for setting up these superfluous area boards.
The Minister stated at the outset of his remarks that he had taken note of the debates on the White Paper which


took place here and in another place. But that is what he was instructed to do during the debates which took place during the passage of the Transport Bill. It was made quite clear to us here, and equally clear in another place, that every opportunity would be given for complete Parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals and that any criticisms put forward would be taken into account and, if necessary, the order would be withdrawn and amendments made.
I note that Lord Salisbury in another place in March, 1953, stated that
if the order were subjected to criticism in one respect or another and that criticism were serious enough, the Government would be well advised—any Government with any sense would be willing to do it—to withdraw it, consider what had been said, and see whether it could be amended and improved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House Of Lords, 18th March; Vol. 181, c. 185.]
On 1st November, the Parliamentary Secretary confirmed that, and the Minister, in commenting on speeches made and suggestions put forward, said, in his winding-up speech that day, that many of them were helpful and constructive. Yet the Minister comes to us this afternoon with this order, which contains only one minor amendment made since the publication of the draft in the White Paper. He has listened to the debates and to the comments made by outside bodies, yet he has made only this insignificant amendment regarding the publication of statistics. It has no effect whatever on the scheme as such or on the reorganisation of the railways. This amendment merely brings the Minister in a little more for consultation. The Minister justified it by saying that it would make for greater responsibility of Ministers of this House, that we could question him on what statistics he had authorised to be published, and so forth.
In passing, I might remark that during the various nationalisation Bills, when the Minister was in opposition, every time we attempted to bring in the Minister there were strong outcries from hon. Members opposite. Invariably it was we who were attacked for giving too much power to the Minister, yet in this unimportant affair he brings in the Minister.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is a different Minister.

Mr. Davies: There are different Ministers, but some of us have a different

view as to whether that is an improvement or not.
What influence has Parliament had in the moulding of this scheme?—[An HON. MEMBER: "None."]. An hon. Member says, "None," and he is quite correct. In the initial debates on the Transport Bill hon. Members opposite put forward proposals for the reorganisation of the railways and pressed on the Government the need for some form of reorganisation. As a sop to them, the Government introduced into the 1953 Bill certain Clauses to effect the reorganisation of the railways. As a result, these area boards are being introduced.
I suggest to the Minister that in view of the previous debate and the promises he has given he has failed in his duty to this House by not having taken more notice of the comments and criticisms that were made. There were criticisms of these area boards from both sides of the House and also from both sides in another place. Not only were we on this side unanimous in opposition to these area boards, but hon. Members opposite were certainly critical. One in particular, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. L. Thomas), in a very courageous speech, attacked the boards wholeheartedly. I suggest to the Minister that he has not in any way taken into account the views which were put forward.
In one respect, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred this afternoon, he has ignored not only the opinions of hon. Members on this side of the House, but the opinions of the vast body of workers responsible for the operation of the railways. The one concrete major proposal, apart from criticism of the area boards, which we put forward from this side, knowing full well that it was one which the trade unions supported and wished to be incorporated in the order, was that there should be statutory provision for the inclusion of representatives of the trade unions to serve on the area boards.
It was proposed that the words incorporated in the 1947 Act would be appropriate to this order. There, it will be recalled, it was proposed that the membership of the various executives and the Commission itself shall be drawn from
persons who have had wide experience and shown capacity in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration, or in the organisation of workers…


Surely the members of the various railway trade unions are those who are most concerned with the successful operation of the railways.
We are told that on these boards there are to be people representing commerce and industry; that people representing local interests will serve. We are told that it is not necessary for these people to have experience or knowledge in transport matters. Yet these boards, composed of people without knowledge or experience in transport matters, are to be responsible for the management of the railways and for a great number of other functions in connection therewith. The one section of the community which has knowledge of the operation and management of the railways, and which is most concerned, is not to be given the right, as a right, to serve on these boards.
Admittedly, the Minister said during his earlier speech that the British Transport Commission had told him that it was counting on the services of experienced trade unionists to assist on the area boards. That is good so far as it goes, but, after all, no Minister can commit a future Minister, any more than the present chairman of the Commission can commit a future chairman. What trade unionists have asked, and what we on this side of the House have supported, is that the terms of the 1947 Act should be incorporated in this order.
We very much regret that, in spite of the strong views expressed in that regard, both by unions outside and by Members of the Opposition in this House, the Minister has failed to take it into account. As a matter of fact, he rejected this suggestion out of hand, even before the Parliamentary debate took place, because the Parliamentary Secretary, in opening the debate, rejected this suggestion straightaway. In other words, the Minister came here with a closed mind. What Parliament said made no difference to him, and he had no intention that it should.
The Minister referred to the types of persons to serve on these boards. I suggest to him that in his consultations with the Commission—I feel sure that consultations must be taking place about the appointments—because I cannot believe that they would be left entirely to the

Commission without some form of consultation with the Minister—he should eschew all former railway directors. We do not wish to go back to the days of railway directors serving on the boards of the main line companies. We do not wish to bring back those people, experienced as they then were in the operation of the railways in pre-war days.
In my view, they have had their day. They were not altogether successful. In some ways their powers may have been limited, and perhaps their abilities were equally limited. They failed in certain respects. They failed to modernise the railways, to bring them up to date and to put them into a competitive position with other forms of transport. They are not the people who should be brought back to operate a modernised railway transport system at the present time.

Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Member is criticising the pre-war directors, I think harshly and adversely and even unfairly. Is it not true to say that on the crucial issue of maintaining esprit de corps among the workers they were a great deal more successful than the party opposite?

Mr. Davies: I should like the hon. Member to take up that point with my trade union hon. Friends sitting behind me.

Mr. Shepherd: I have done so.

Mr. Davies: He should cast his mind back to the pre-war days and recall the low level of wages and the working conditions prevailing on the railways at that time. If he then suggests that the workers and the railway directors shared this esprit de corps I think he is mistaken about the actual position.

Mr. Shepherd: I am not talking merely for the sake of talking. I was born in Crewe and lived there during the early part of my life. I repeat that the esprit de corps on the railways during that time was very much better than it is today.

Mr. Davies: I think we may leave it there.
I was surprised—startled—to hear the concluding remarks of the Minister regarding the persons to serve on these boards and their remuneration. It is


extraordinary that we are asked to approve an order giving the Commission authority to appoint people to these area boards—and, therefore, in a way, making it indirectly responsible to Parliament—yet are not told what they are to receive by way of remuneration. It is an extraordinary thing that Parliament should debate these matters, should be concerned with them, that the whole appointment should be the responsibility of Parliament, which will delegate that responsibility to the Commission, yet we are not to be told what remuneration these people will receive.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the hon. Member quote any other case where a nationalised industry itself makes appointments and where Parliament then proceeds to fix the salary to go with those appointments?

Mr. Davies: I cannot recall any other case where the Minister responsible for a nationalised industry has put before the House a draft Order reorganising a section of that industry and made it the responsibility of this House. In the case of the various divisional boards of the National Coal Board, and so on, it is entirely an internal arrangement. It was not the responsibility of this House whatsoever.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the nationalisation Bills of his own Government were schemes presented to Parliament for reorganising—for better or worse—the industries concerned, but that no one sought to lay down what salaries the employees of those boards should receive?

Mr. Davies: They are not employees.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They were appointed by these boards as opposed to the members of the boards proposed by the Minister. I think that the hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Mr. Davies: These boards have now been transformed into something different. We are now told that members of these boards are to be employees of the Commission.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The word was "appointed." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The point of substance—do not let us

quibble about words—is that the proposed boards are appointed, not by me, but by the Commission. I ask the hon. Gentleman once again to give me an example where a nationalised industry had its appointments fixed by Parliament and specified by Parliament.

Mr. Davies: I would point out to the Minister that these members of the boards are to have other occupations. They are to be part-time members, and Parliament and the public—after all, it is the public who, in the long run, will be paying their salaries—should be told what payment they are to receive.
We want to know a great deal more about the functions and the duties of the members of these boards. How much time are they to devote to their work? What remuneration are they to receive? It is the responsibility of the Minister to provide Parliament with that information.

Sir Gurney Braithwaite: The hon. Member is on a point of great importance. Would he tell the House what, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, the scale of remuneration should be, if we are to attract the best men to these boards?

Mr. Davies: I suggest that the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation should ask that question of the present Minister. That is precisely the question I was about to put to him. I was about to ask the Minister what he has in mind.
Are these people to receive £200 a year or £2,000? I do not know. It is for the Government to tell us what their functions are. It is for the Government to tell us what they are to do. It is not for us to say. I want to know, because if we know what their functions are, we can assess what their salaries should be. At present we know neither. The Government are keeping us completely in the dark.

Sir G. Braithwaite: This is an important point. The hon. Member has been urging the appointment of railwaymen to these boards. In his opinion, what remuneration should they receive?

Mr. Davies: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, for whose opinions on many matters I have great respect, but I am not in a position to answer him, because I do not know what these gentlemen will


have to do. That is something I am coming to in a minute, because I am still confused about the functions of the members of the boards.
If the debate we had on 1st November had succeeded in clarifying what these functions were, and had made clear what was the division of responsibility between the boards and the chief regional managers in relation to the Commission, and where this chain of command to which the Minister has referred lies, then it would have been a helpful debate. But I found the confusion worse confounded by the speeches that were made.
We have been told that the members of the boards are not to be guinea pigs, as if they were, it would not be possible to get the right type of responsible persons to serve. At the same time, we are told that they are to be part time. We are told that they are not to be responsible for day-to-day management, but, at the same time, all the instances of what these boards are to do have been examples of management. Every example which was produced during our previous debate was one of management. After all, the main function which is given to them in Article 5 (1, a) of the draft Order is the management of the railways.
Then the Parliamentary Secretary told us in the previous debate that decentralisation is not to be carried to the point where there is any destruction of unification of the railways which has been effected, and, of course, we all desire that that should not take place. But he also told us these boards are to have control over a total expenditure of all but £1 million of the total railway expenditure. He stated that of the £446 million which it is estimated the railways will spend in any given year £445 million will be the responsibility of these boards.
As explained in the White Paper, the scheme provides for the retention to the Commission of a large number of very important matters, centralised matters which should be the responsibility of the Commission arising from unification and including standardisation, and so forth. Does the Minister really think that if the total expenditure of the railways is to be the responsibility of the boards—except for this very small amount—that thereby it will be possible for the Commission to carry on these centralised requirements—

this centralisation which is so essential to preserve the gains which have been brought about by unification? I find it difficult to believe that with an expenditure of only £1 million it will be possible for the Commission to continue with unification which nationalisation brought about. It seems that, there, there is inconsistency.
Any sense which appeared to emerge from the scheme, or from statements made in this House, was destroyed by the unhappy examples of the work which the boards might do, which were given to us by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary told us previously that the permanent way of the railways would be one of the matters with which the boards would concern themselves and that the overhaul of locomotives would be another. He said that the Commission would lay down the general standards of maintenance for permanent way and for the repair of locomotives but that maintenance and repairs undertaken locally would be the responsibility of the boards.
Here is a technical matter which does not require the appointment of the boards. We are told that these boards will not be composed of transport men. How can these local representatives of commerce and industry know whether or not a particular section of track should be relaid, or whether a particular locomotive should be repaired? It is ridiculous that these technical matters, which, at present, are the responsibility of technical men, should become the responsibility of area boards of non-transport people and that the area boards should have the right to interfere with the technical management of this great undertaking.
The Minister himself made a choice of example even less happy than that of the Parliamentary Secretary. He suggested that the matter of time-tables should be a matter for the area boards. I do not know how much he knows about railway operations, but the drawing up of timetables is one of the most highly complicated and complex things in the whole railway industry. How can he expect that a local board can intervene in the combination of the scheduled runnings of the trains locally which have to fit in with those trains which run through from region to region? How can he imagine that there can be interference in any way with local trains when one has to plan the operation as a whole.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, while technical aspects will, of course, play an important part—and the board will have its technical advisers—there is also something to be said, by the example I gave of drastically revising the time-table, for some attention being paid to the needs of the travelling public?

Mr. Davies: It is not necessary to appoint area boards to fulfil that function. That function is already satisfactorily fulfilled in two ways. First, there is the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. In every area there is such a committee and these committees have been made more powerful under the 1953 Act than they were under the 1947 Act.
Secondly, at present, if there is dissatisfaction—I have had this experience in my own constituency and I dare say that the Minister has in his—over the timing of certain trains, over certain suburban trains, for instance, then representations can be made, either direct to the local railway management, or to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, by the chamber of commerce, or local authority, or the ratepayers' association, or others. These representations are made and are considered and in many cases those concerned contact their Members of Parliament who take up the matter direct with the railway management. But that does not mean there is any need to appoint these boards to deal with such matters of management. There are channels for dealing with them at the present time.
The second example the Minister gave was on charges—that it would be possible for these area boards to intervene on the question of charges. Under the Act, the Transport Commission will have to present a charges scheme, as the Minister mentioned this afternoon. This charges scheme will lay down the maximum charges which can be made. Within these maximum charges there is considerable flexibility for special rates for trains. There is considerable freedom.
I suggest that that freedom will have to be exercised not by people meeting around a board table every two weeks or every month, but by decisions which will have to be taken quickly and which are the responsibility of the commercial staff. The commercial staff, operating with the chief regional manager, are responsible in these matters and are quite capable

of dealing with them. If it is a question of competing with road transport or other forms of transport, then these decisions must be taken quickly in relation to all other matters for which the chief regional manager is responsible. They cannot await the decisions of a board which, in any event, may not be an entirely disinterested party in view of the fact that the members will be drawn from commerce and industry.
If it is not essential to appoint the area boards to assist in the operation of the railways, is it essential that they should be appointed for the formulation of policy? I find that the statements made in the previous debate on questions of policy are equally confusing and equally unconvincing as reasons for the appointment of the boards to deal with management. It is true that Article 5 (1) of the draft Order provides that the Commission's policy shall be carried into effect by the area boards, but the Minister has said that the boards will act not from the point of view of day-to-day executive management but from the point of view of policy in its local aspects, of a general guidance to the regional manager and by way of report on local conditions upwards to the Commission. They will, therefore, be responsible for policy.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us—and if my hon. Friends can make head or tail of this I should welcome their interpretation—that the policy will, at the same time, be the cause and the effect of what is being done by the boards. I find it difficult to understand exactly where their responsibility for policy comes in. The truth, I suggest, is that the boards have been forced upon the Commission by Conservative back bench opinion and that they have no idea what their true functions should be or will be. The foisting of these boards upon the Commission results from this vague hankering after the old railway boards, of which hon. Members opposite seem so enamoured, and it is based on a complete misunderstanding of how the old railway boards worked and what their responsibilities were.
After all, the railway boards were the final executive organ. There was no British Transport Commission above them; they were the responsible body for the management and operation of the railway system with which they were concerned. If anyone has any doubts


about the way in which the boards functioned and their difference from the proposed area boards, he should read the speech made in another place on 3rd November by Lord Glyn, which made that clear.
The Opposition have been consistent in objecting from the outset to the setting up of these area boards. During debates on the Transport Bill, we stated that legislation was unnecessary for the reorganisation of the railways, that any reorganisation could take place within the ambit of the 1947 Act and that it was not necessary for the Minister to ask for legislative powers or to force upon the Commission, through statutory orders, any specific type of scheme. We stand by that attitude, but today we have the order before us and, inasmuch as it sets up these area boards, we are opposed to it.
In the first place, we consider that these boards are superfluous, that they interpose an unnecessary body in the normal chain of command which at present exists from the Commission to the chief regional manager, that they impose an obstacle which can but hamper the railways in their effective and efficient operation and, what is more, that they will merely create an unnecessary additional bureaucracy, inasmuch as the area boards will build up their own empires, will create work for themselves and will add confusion to the organisation and administration of the railway system.
The second reason for which we are opposed to the boards is that, in spite of what the Minister said today in trying to eliminate a blur, if it is possible to do such a thing, there is no doubt that confusion will be created in responsibility. It is impossible to define the areas of responsibility between the Commission, the area boards and the chief regional managers. The chief regional managers will be in an impossible position and will not know where their responsibility lies.
The Minister has made it clear that the chief technical officers must be with the Commission. That must be the case if we are to retain a centralised policy and control other matters at the centre, for which the Commission will be responsible. There must be chief technical officers at the centre and the chief regional managers, who will have to deal with

them, will not know where their responsibility lies. There will be a conflict of loyalty.
I recall that the former Minister of Transport, now Secretary of State for the Colonies, during the discussion of the abolition of the Railway Executive, attacked the dualism of control. That was the main reason advanced for the abolition of the Railway Executive, but it is this very dualism of control which is being reintroduced by the setting up of the area boards. These boards cannot possibly work.
The third reason for which we are opposed to the area boards is that they threaten to diminish the gains which have been derived from unification, and they may delay or even prevent the further integration of all forms of transport. Unification followed by integration was a policy of the 1947 Act. This order reverses that policy and in our view, therefore, is a retrograde step. Unification will be diminished because of the creation of the area boards.
Fourthly, this decision makes no contribution to the current needs of transport and particularly to those of the railways. Those current needs—modernisation, electrification, capital investment now being planned—are matters which should take priority over this petty interference with the Commission's responsibilities. Because the priorities have gone all wrong in the scheme now put before us, rather than allowing the Commission to go ahead with these plans for the modernisation and improvement of the railway system, we consider that Parliament is wasting its time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the hon. Gentleman amplify his suggestion that the Commission has been prevented from going ahead, because I was explicit on the point concerning the stage it has reached?

Mr. Davies: What I was saying was that if the energy of the Commission is concentrated, as it has been in recent months, on drawing up this scheme and working it out, and if, now, it is to be diverted to the carrying out of this reorganisation of the railways rather than to their actual operation and to preparing for modernisation, it is quite clear that it will be delaying them.
The British Transport Commission is entering into one of the most difficult


periods in its career. If it had been left alone to develop freely along the lines laid down by the 1947 Act, if it had not been interfered with by a change of Government policy, many of the problems which have confronted it would, no doubt, by now have been solved. The wanton sale of the road haulage undertaking, which is taking away a large proportion of its services, which will make it far more difficult for the Commission to pay its way and is almost certain to result in deficits, means that the Commission is heading for a bad period.
If, at the very time when the management should be free to consolidate its position and develop, it is being hamstrung by the necessity of carrying through this reorganisation and by the creation of superfluous boards, which will interfere in the operations of the Commission, then a bad service will be done both to the Commission and to transport in this country. I suggest to the Minister that it is not too late to withdraw this draft Order, and to allow the Commission to get on with its job.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question on a very important point, on which we should like to hear the views of the Opposition? Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that by this particular scheme much greater power is devolved upon the Commission? Does that represent the views of the party opposite, or not? Do they think that the Commission should have further power, or that it should have less power, as is deliberately given by this scheme?

Mr. Davies: I am sorry that I do not follow the hon. Gentleman, but I do not consider that greater power is devolved upon the Commission. The Commission has power today, and in creating these area boards I cannot see any greater power devolving upon the Commission. If the hon. Gentleman is right, or if the Commission's power is not diminished, that is certainly an argument against the creation of the area boards.

4.43 p.m.

Major Sir Roger Conant: The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has emphasised at some length the differences between us in relation to these reorganisation proposals. I think that most of

the points to which he referred are comparatively small matters, since where the railways are concerned, on the long-term basis we have a great deal on which we can all agree, not only as far as the ultimate aim is concerned, but also to a large extent on methods. We all agree that decentralisation or devolution is a proper step to be pursued.
As I see the position, when the railways were nationalised in 1947 we gained some things and we lost others, but the change was obscured and perhaps made easier by the fact of Government control throughout the war. We gained the advantages of big business, centralised buying, but I think that, although hon. Members opposite may not entirely agree, we lost a great deal in esprit de corps and the personal touch and a real interest in the needs of local inhabitants. I think we must aim now, if we can, to achieve the best of both worlds by retaining such advantages as there were by nationalisation and regaining what we lost when we gave up the old system.
In so far as these proposals are a step in that direction, and I think they are, I certainly welcome them. This will be the third step in decentralisation. As I understand the history of the railways since the war, before 1951 there was the appointment of the chief regional officers, which was the first step in devolution. Then, in 1953, we had the interim scheme by which supreme management was abolished and departmental responsibility was transferred to the regions. The chief regional officers became managers, with much greater powers.
The objection that I see to the present interim scheme under which the railways are now operating is that, while it achieves decentralisation and brings management far nearer to the railway users than under the previous system, it still provides for management of the railways by technicians and specialists alone. I think that with the best will in the world, this must mean that the technician aims to provide the best service which he thinks the users of the railways should enjoy and not what they demand.
I can quote an instance of that in relation to a very small matter concerning my own constituency. Some years ago, a local authority wanted an alteration made in the timing of a particular train. It was not a matter of great difficulty,


and it only involved the train stopping at a different station from that at which it previously stopped. The local authority decided that it would be a good idea, but the region would have nothing to do with it, as it felt that they knew better than the railway users what they ought to have. The region has now agreed, I am glad to say, to send along officials to investigate the matter and to count up the number of tickets issued. I am quite sure that, under a system of area boards, with local representatives, this sort of trouble would not have arisen, or, if it had, would have been settled very much more quickly.
The most important point in this scheme, as I see it, is not so much the appointment of the area boards as their composition. I am very glad that the members are to be part-time members, which means that they will have a continuing interest in outside affairs. Their qualifications, set out in the Second Schedule of the draft Order, were rather better expressed by my right hon. Friend in his speech, but they are that the members should have had
… wide experience of and likely to be conversant with the circumstances and special requirements, in relation to transport, of the area of the Authority.
I think the least important of their qualifications should be a knowledge of the railways, because, after all, they have all the expert advice to assist them in the person of the chief regional manager, and what they will want to know is what the people of their region will be likely to require in the matter of transport.
It has been suggested in all seriousness that, instead of these people of wide general experience, there ought to be a body of specialists, people representing particular interests, but the difficulty about appointing such people is that they are so often selected, not for peculiar knowledge of the interests they represent, but for the lack of knowledge they possess about anything else, and I do not think that a board composed of people who are all specialists in their own fields, however worthy they may be, would be a very harmonious body with which to work.
After all, many of us in this House are specialists in one form or another—fortunately, I am not so myself—but we all

claim to represent all the different interests of our constituents, however little we may know about them. The system adopted by the party opposite when they decided how the British Transport Commission should be composed should, I feel, be followed in setting up the area boards.
On the question of competition among the areas, it would be very nice in theory if one could see real competition between areas, but that is out of the question in relation to a service like the railways, and always has been, if, by competition, we mean the sort of competition that one conceives of between two private firms who are both seeking to manufacture the same commodity. None the less, by proper provision of statistics I think we could arrange for some sort of yardstick by which area boards and the British Transport Commission could compare the workings of one department in one board with the same department in another.
These reorganisation proposals cannot in any sense be regarded as a final solution. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, success depends very largely on the spirit and the intention behind them and upon the way in which they are carried out. They represent a very great improvement on anything that we have or have had, and for that reason I am very happy to give the proposals my support.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris: Some years ago, those of us who are actively associated with the transport industry had considerable misgivings about the higher appointments being given to men of military rank. It now seems that our misgivings were unfounded.
First we had General Sir William Slim, upon whom the responsibility was placed of directing staff and labour matters. He made rapid progress and commended himself to the employees, and I think to the managements. Unfortunately, the Government withdrew him for other work. Second was Major General Russell, who did his work so remarkably well that he became like a speckled bird, the envy of all the other birds round about. He has now been deprived of his opportunities, after many years, of useful work.


Then we had General Daril Watson working quietly and efficiently.
Now we have Sir Brian Robertson, who is faced with the most formidable task of all. In very difficult days he is called upon to reorganise the railway service and to put it on a better basis. The only suggestion that the Minister was able to make this afternoon was that he must assist in the establishment of these area boards, despite the fact that neither the chairman of the Commission nor the members want them. They regard them as a positive nuisance, and if they were not fettered by the Transport Act they would be very glad to be relieved of the responsibility.
I am not asking the House to accept that criticism merely because I express it. If hon. Members would turn to page 11 of Command Paper 9191, "Railways Reorganisation Scheme," they will read in paragraph 26 these words:
Having weighed these considerations, the Commission has decided to recommend the appointment of Boards as the area authorities provided that certain fundamental points are clearly established in regard to them. The experience of the Commission between 1948 and 1953 has shown how essential it is that the authority of the Commission in the scheme of organisation should be absolute. The scheme should admit of no doubt on this point. The function of the Commission is primarily to determine policy, but they must have the authority to ensure that their decisions are carried out. There is a danger that by the establishment of Boards as the area authorities an element productive of friction and lack of cohesion may be introduced. The Commission are, therefore, strongly and unanimously of the opinion that they alone should appoint the persons who would constitute the area authorities.
What does that mean in plain English? It means that Sir Brian Robertson does not want to be faced with the difficulties that Lord Hurcomb had and that he is not going to have any more nonsense about divided responsibility and dual control. It is only because the Act of last year imposed upon the Commission the task of suggesting area boards that they come forward with what must obviously be regarded as the minimum proposals they could make. If the Minister and his friends feel that flexibility is the most desirable feature in the transport world, why should he not give the chairman and the Commission the opportunity. Give them the chance to reorganise the transport industry.
The duties allocated to the area boards in the scheme could be adequately performed by existing railway officers. The interpolation of boards between the Commission and the chief regional manager introduces an additional and an unnecessary link in the chain of authority. If we must have boards, they should contain representatives from the employees so that the Commission may have the benefit of their experience.
I am glad that there is to be no change in the boundaries. The Minister paid no attention to the suggestion of regional rivalry, distinctive uniforms and different coloured rolling-stock. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us if he is persisting with those suggestions. If so, it can only be regarded as a very retrograde step. Some of us have been in the House long enough to remember when there was regional rivalry, different coloured or different marked uniforms and different stock. What happened then to the railway industry? It got into a most shocking condition, financially and otherwise. Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest that postmen in Lancashire, Yorkshire, Scotland and Wales should have different uniforms in order to prove their higher efficiency in one area as compared with another? Does he want to incur this additional cost merely for the sake of giving someone in the L.M.S. and someone else on the Great Western a different coloured uniform? What advantage will be derived from it? I suggest to him, after many years' experience of the railway industry, that he ought to inculcate a sense of loyalty to British railways as a whole. In that, he would be meeting the wishes of the employees themselves.
I wish to analyse paragraph 27 of the White Paper to which I have referred. The implementation of policy, including general supervision, can be covered by the full-time regional departmental managements and cannot effectively be supervised by part-time boards. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how he can possibly expect part-time people without any experience in the transport industry to be able to make suggestions to improve efficiency and to get the machine to run much more smoothly?
The fact is that the railway industry is as important and in some respects as complicated, as any other. Can the Minister


conceive of the I.C.I. or any comparable body bringing in outsiders to tell it how to do its business? Why not give the Commission, whose job it is to organise the industry, the opportunity to win the confidence and the goodwill of the employees? The results would be very much better than the present proposal is likely to achieve.
Paragraph 27 (b) deals with improvements in the service and the recommendations to the Commission affecting general policy and economies. Those are already handled regionally and, as pointed out in paragraph 16,
The new arrangements are working well. The Chief Regional Managers are now conscious of a real sense of responsibility for their Regions; they regularly attend meetings of the Commission for the discussion of matters of policy and principle affecting the industry.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman want to interfere with arrangements that are working well, and with a method satisfactory to the Commission and encouraging to the chief regional managers? These boards will be nothing but a proper nuisance and a hindrance to everyone in the industry.
In paragraph 27 (c) mention is made of the submission of budgets and forecasts of capital expenditure within the regions. How is the part-time member to function? He will be advised by the chief regional manager that certain capital expenditure should be incurred and certain schemes embarked upon. Is the part-time member to turn the chief regional manager down? If so, on what basis, and from where will he derive his information and authority?
If the chief regional manager has been regularly attending meetings of the Commission under the chairmanship of Sir Brian Robertson he will not go to the regional board with something of which he feels the Commission will not approve, What is the part-time member to do? He has no alternative but to submit to the advice of the chief regional manager. If he does not, he then assumes knowledge which he cannot possibly have, and experience which he has not been able to obtain. The area boards should be abolished here and now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) pointed out that, in the last debate, the Minister canvassed the opinion of the House. He

then heard repeated over and over again opinions similar to those which I am expressing. He asked for our opinion, and for the guidance of the House, but has ignored it completely. He has done nothing at all. It is an abuse of Parliamentary procedure to pretend that one is asking for advice knowing full well that one does not intend to accept it. Neither in his speech today nor on other occasions has there been a single indication that the Minister is amenable to suggestion and is prepared to be helped by those who have had many years experience in the industry.
Why not make greater use of the consultative committees now in existence? The right hon. Gentleman said that he thinks that they could make a greater contribution if the public would use them. That is perfectly true, but he should encourage them and say to their members, "Here is your opportunity. We have a Commission to draft policy, and a staff to implement it. If, as a result of your testing of public reaction, you feel that things are wrong, here is your opportunity to make suggestions." Why not do that, instead of introducing a part-time area board which has no authority at all except that contained in a spiteful Clause in an undesirable Act of Parliament?
The Minister should not under-estimate the task which Sir Brian Robertson and his colleagues are facing. The "Financial Times," in its leading article on the 18th November, drew attention to the difficulties now confronting the Commission. It said that, though it may be true that higher wages will be the better policy in the long run, something else must be done. The Government must give to Sir Brian Robertson that which they have denied to those in charge of the railways for several years, namely, freedom, and the ability to engage in a great capital expenditure programme.
The "Financial Times" pointed to various desirable improvements. Why have they not been brought about? It is not because the Commission has not given them attention, nor because they have not been the subject of inquiry by chief regional managers and by the trade unions concerned. Those bodies, through their consultative committees, have made suggestions over and over again. They have said that if British Railways are to be more efficient, have better railway


stock and better engines, and derive the maximum benefit at the lowest cost, the problem of increased capital expenditure must be faced. The right hon. Gentleman will render a far more useful service to the community if, instead of fiddling about with area boards that no one wants, he would try to prevail on the Cabinet to allow the Transport Commission a far greater amount of money. Then, perhaps, we should get better coaches, more diesel stock, finer types of engines—and more of them. That is his opportunity, and I beg of him to take it.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Minister has, himself, diagnosed the main complaint—the area boards. Will the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, quote a single instance of anyone wanting the boards except a few back benchers on the other side? Does the chairman of the Commission want them? If he does, why put in all these conditions? He does not want them. He wants absolute authority. He does not want the Government to nominate the members—he wants to nominate them himself. If Sir Brian Robertson has his own way—and here I do not blame him—he wants yes men on the area boards, and so avoid all the trouble he can. If they are not yes men they will be a nuisance. The area boards should be abolished at once and the job should be left to those who are now doing it.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: There is one point on which I think we can all readily agree with the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), namely, that capital expenditure is vital for the railways. I take the view that it would matter very little what organisation the railways have, so long as they had enough capital to modernise themselves. From the remarks of the superheated phalanxes of railway experts on the empty benches opposite, one would judge this to be an important debate. In truth, it is a debate upon a very narrow issue indeed.
When my right hon. Friend introduced his proposals, I think that we all agreed with the Transport Commission itself that a degree of devolution was necessary; and that debate, and this present debate, is merely as to the method of devolution. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), and

the hon. Member for Swansea, West chased what I thought were some rather tired hares—and chased them unsuccessfully. In due course, I shall deal with some of the points they raised.
On this narrow issue of devolution the Government are not alone in choosing the method of area boards. The scheme which was originally put up was not the Government's scheme at all, but, as the hon. Member for Swansea, West should be reminded, it was initially the Commission's scheme, and, of the various alternatives open to it, it was the Commission who choose to use the method of area boards now embodied in the scheme.

Mr. P. Morris: The hon. and learned Gentleman may agree that the obligation to submit a scheme was imposed on the Commission; otherwise it would not have undertaken the task at all.

Mr. Renton: Yes, we can all be corrected by the experts on the Front Benches—that is what they are there for. My recollection is that it was proposed to set up area authorities and to set up one or other of the organisations, which the 1953 Act left open. At any rate, the scheme before us is the scheme which the Commission chose—let us say within its limitations. Let us put it that way. I think that we can all agree with that.
I have been brought up to believe that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The hon. Member for Enfield, East flattered my hon. Friends by saying that the Government had, in effect, succumbed to the ideas which we put into their heads. I must say that we do not take full credit for all that the Government have done in this matter; but I should have thought that the Government could very well claim that they had flattered the party opposite, because what they have done is to adopt the system of part-time area boards which the party opposite chose for coal, gas, electricity, and regional hospital boards. We have not interfered—and, so far as I know, we do not intend to do so—with the broad structure of those boards. They have worked perhaps better than many of us thought they would. Why on earth should not the same broad structure be tried with railways? What can be the objection to it?

Mr. Manuel: I object to the hon. and learned Gentleman drawing a parallel


between regional hospital boards and what is proposed here. I was a member of a regional hospital board, which included in its membership very skilled people drawn from the hospital service. There cannot be that comparison.

Mr. Renton: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think he is being a little obstinate. We are not concerned only with industrial organisations, whether it is a matter of production as with coal or industrial chemicals, or whether it is the provision of services as with electricity and transport, but also with the provision of a slightly different brand of service, namely, the medical service, or with a charitable organisation like the National Gallery, and so on.
We in this country understand very well the position whereby the day-to-day responsibility for management is carried on by tried experts, men who have reached eminence in their field and who are followed in the years to come by other experts of the same type. But those experts, it has been found, whatever the field of activity may be, have something to gain by taking advice, not every day not perhaps at least every month, from people of intelligence, of proved public integrity and reputation, people of some broader experience than the experts who are carrying on the job.
To my mind, that is a sound principle, which is now part of the British way of life, and hon. Members opposite made a great extension of that principle—and I pay them credit for it—when they established these area boards themselves. Therefore, if we are quarrelling about area boards as the main matter in issue between the House, we are quarrelling on a very narrow point, and a very surprising point also.
There can be many shades of opinion about the details of this scheme. Varying shades of opinion were expressed on both sides of the House in our last debate on this subject. My right hon. Friend considered them. I would assume that he consulted the Chairman of the Transport Commission in considering them. He decided to make one small but quite significant amendment.
I think that we must accept the scheme as it is now in a spirit of trust, knowing

that it is a scheme which has been evolved by railway men, knowing that the experts have had their go at it, and that the politicians in both Houses have had their go at it. In passing, may I mention, in answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, West, that there was one very eminent noble Lord who was himself, so to speak, the architect of transport nationalisation, who, if I understood his speech correctly, did not have very much to criticise in the scheme which is now before us. We must accept this in a spirit of trust, and give it a trial.
I did not speak in the last debate, so may I mention one matter of detail, this question of regional accountability? Many of my hon. Friends and I regard it as most important that there should be a yardstick, not only to compare one region with another, because that is sometimes very difficult to do. What each region requires is a yardstick whereby, even roughly, it may compare its own performance in one year with another. For that reason, some of us thought that it was important to get a little more closely buttoned up this question of the publication of regional accounts.
It is not a question of preparing regional accounts, because they have got to be prepared anyway. If the Transport Commission produces global accounts, they contain only a summation of what is contained in the regional accounts submitted to them. It is no question of asking the regional authorities to do something which is not done within their own walls. The question which arises is the question, how much this House and the public, as well as the phalanxes of railway experts everywhere, should be allowed to go and see and compare for the sake of constructive criticism.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Mr. Ernest Davies rose——

Mr. Renton: I think I should be allowed to finish this point before giving way. My right hon. Friend said in the last debate that we attached importance to the representations which my hon. Friends had made, and that he had asked the Chairman of the Commission to appoint a committee to consider exactly how much more, if any, regional accountability was possible. We cannot after this very short distance of time—only three weeks—expect to hear any further on that point at the moment; but I think that all


concerned—my right hon. Friend, hon. Members, whether they agree on that point or not, and the Commission itself—appreciate the importance of the matter, and I express to my right hon. Friend the hope that the House will be kept informed of the progress of the inquiry which the Chairman of the Transport Commission is having made.

Mr. Davies: I want to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to mislead the House on this question of regional accountability. There is a very great difference between the present system of accounts and that which prevailed under the four main line companies. The railway clearing house has been abolished, and although there may be regional accounts kept, they do not reflect the inter-regional traffic, because there is no clearing system as there was. One cannot have a comparison on that basis.

Mr. Renton: I entirely agree. In fact, my hon. Friends who have discussed this matter on the Floor of the House and elsewhere have always made it clear that they realise the present limitations of regional accountability, but at the same time we point to the Third Schedule and say that these mere operating statistics are not good enough as a yardstick.
That is as far as we go, and we ask that thought be given to the question of comparing costs especially, and if it can conceivably work out, some way of comparing receipts one year with another. We realise that most of the goods traffic in this country moves not within regions but from region to region. Let that be clearly and fairly understood. We are not being oppressive towards anybody. We simply want to get the best yardstick.
May I in conclusion refer to two points to which I attach great importance? I am very tempted to follow the hares to which I referred earlier, but I think I have spoken long enough. First, I should like to feel that the whole House wishes the Transport Commission well in the operation of this scheme, although we may disagree with the details of the scheme. May I say, to some extent in contradiction of the hon. Member for Enfield, East that I know a number of railwaymen who are not political supporters of mine, but who, when we got into power and although they had voted against us, looked forward to the regional decentralisation proposals. I have got that from them.
This scheme will work much better if it is supported by both sides of the House. I think it will be a very great pity if, through an excess of zeal in the party opposite, there were a division.
With all humility, I should like to say a word about the Chairman of the Commission. He took over his chairmanship at an exceptionally difficult time of change. He is the sort of man, who could have served his country in so many different fields. As it is, he responded to the call to serve it as head of our British Transport Commission. He has now given his life to it and has thrown himself into it heart and soul. Hon. Members sometimes become so enthusiastic about their own pet ideas—criticising this and praising that—that they are inclined to forget, or take for granted, the immense burden which he is carrying. In my humble way I should like to pay tribute to all that he is doing, and to wish him all success in operating this scheme.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will consider some amendment to the Order now before the House. I want to suggest to him a way in which he can remedy a fault which, I suggest, is contained in it. The Minister, together with every hon. Member who has spoken from the benches opposite, spoke as though the difference between us was a very narrow one. My view, however, is that the whole work of railway operation has been most unfortunately bedevilled during the last three years by political disputation, and I am certain that that has resulted in harm to the industry.
The scheme recognises the possibility that additional functions for area boards will be provided in the future. The Minister must surely recognise that in the course of the natural evolution of railway reorganisation, devolution or decentralisation, we are not going to accept as eternal the present regions. They exist, perhaps, as a result of historical accidents a little over 30 years ago, and they should certainly not be perpetuated for ever. If, in following out a natural development, the Commission forms not regions but transport areas, does the Minister recognise that, according to the Order, to each of these reorganised areas there must be attached an area board?
Let me explain what I regard as the natural evolution of railway development. I have described the present regions as historical accidents. Earlier on, the Minister spoke of the value that will be derived from the voluntary help of part-time people who can give immense help to regional management. One has only to examine one region—from Carlisle to Euston—to appreciate the difficulty of saying which locality will render the manager the greatest benefit from local knowledge. The truth is that there exist natural transport areas. The North-East Coast is one; Birmingham is another; South Lancashire another, and there are Carlisle, Bristol, Leeds and South Wales. All these are natural transport areas, determined, not by the 1921 Act, but sometimes by the importation of raw materials and sometimes by the steel and coal regions around them. The manufacturing regions in Birmingham and South Lancashire are natural transport regions and, sooner or later, the railway system has to be developed, in devolution or decentralisation, to take account of those areas.
I want to emphasise the fact that if, in the natural course of development, the Transport Commission ultimately constitutes transport areas rather than regions, this Order ties to each area the area board laid down in the 1953 Act.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: That is an interesting point. Can the hon. Member explain exactly what he means? He has mentioned Birmingham—but the railway does not end there; it comes from London and passes through Birmingham on its way to somewhere else. When one considers a railway one must surely consider the terminal points, and not merely a central section.

Mr. Hargreaves: We are not here concerned merely with terminal points. If that were so, Glasgow and London would be the only areas which affected us. I imagine that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) would be as concerned as I should to find that, besides the Transport Commission, all the regions, with the exception of two, had their headquarters in London. I do not think that London is the be-all and end-all of our transport system.

Mr. Wilson: The railways happen to run to London.

Mr. James H. Hoy: They also run from it.

Mr. Hargreaves: Perhaps the hon. Member for Truro is not aware of the fact that railways run to many other places. His experience of railways may not have led him to appreciate that fact. Most people, especially those concerned with freight working, recognise that natural transport regions such as I have described do exist and that, sooner or later, the evolution of transport development will have to recognise that fact. It may be that sources of raw material will alter in time, and to that extent my argument may be less effective, but the real point of the matter is not affected; this Order ties to every one of those areas an area board, which I regard as quite objectionable.
I should like to direct the Minister's attention to one or two further objections, which I think are sound ones. If the area boards bring to their regions a knowledge and experience of the needs of industry as consumers or customers of transport, large and import ant customers of the railway system will naturally gravitate towards the boards. There is a danger inherent in that. Suppose, for instance, the National Coal Board, or Imperial Chemical Industries, or the Shell-Mex Company, all of them outstandingly important customers of the railways, went to an area board and tried to influence the freight rates of that board, as they could under this Order. The railway system is exceedingly anxious to carry traffic of the sort those great industrial concerns have to send. Suppose those companies were to proceed to influence freight rates in certain directions, that would constitute a danger and an influence that might work to the detriment of the whole set-up. At all events, it is an influence of which the Minister must take account.
It has been said, and the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) emphasised, that among many employees on the railway system there is a belief that with decentralisation their knowledge and experience will be brought to bear more effectively and closely on railway operation in the future. Certainly that belief is strongly held. There also is a danger to which the Minister's attention ought to be directed. He must know that even in the present


large regions the mobility of labour is to some extent hampered, at all events among the lower grades, because the system of transfer from one region to another is not at all reasonable. For instance, the vacancies in those grades are not advertised, or, at any rate, not widely enough, and not between one region and another.
The more we can make labour mobile in the future the greater will be the advantage to the whole system. In certain areas there is a great shortage of labour. In the older railway centres where there is a tradition of railway working in many families, a tradition that in some families extends over many generations. In places like Carlisle, Crewe and Swindon, the labour strength can be maintained; but in other areas there is a really desperate need for additional labour. Therefore, I think we can be in agreement over this, that the more we can make labour mobile the better it will be for the transport industry.
We are keeping our speeches as short as we can to allow as many hon. Members as possible to take part in this short debate, and, therefore, I shall not spend any more time in elaborating what I have attempted lightly to sketch. I hope the Minister even at this late stage will take account of the criticisms and suggestions that have been made in relation to these proposals and this Order. I hope he will even consider amendments to the scheme, to make it fit in with the promises made both here and in another place some months ago.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Robson Brown: Having listened to both this debate and the previous one, it has become clear to me that the Opposition base their dislike to the proposals of this White Paper on the narrowest of grounds. Hence the most illogical arguments have been put forward in support of their case. They have criticised the idea of area boards and questioned their value as part of the railway system. In doing so, they have turned Nelson's blind eye on the well-proved basis for successful management of private companies in industry in this country; they just conveniently ignore it.
Almost without exception, every industrial company operates with a board of directors on a part-time basis, with specialists and experts and permanent

officers. That structure of management and operation is, broadly, what is proposed by this scheme for the railways. I believe it to be a basic and sound structure. As one of my hon. Friends has already observed, when the Opposition were the Government they imported into all their Measures for the nationalisation of industries provisions for the establishment of area boards and regional hoards, wisely copying private enterprise.
It is always valuable and stimulating to bring into an organisation brains from outside. It gives the technicians and administrators additional confidence, and infuses new ideas into the organisation. It is all too easy for a vacuum to be created inside an organisation in which the same problems are being considered by the same people day after day and week after week. A new man coming in can introduce new angles to an old problem. Very likely he will have contacted and consulted other individuals and other bodies outside the organisation, and so can increase the value of the advice he can give it. A new man can bring new thoughts, new light, guidance and encouragement.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris)—whose experience in these matters, obtained over a number of years, I personally respect, so that I listen with great interest to what he says on these subjects—tonight asked a theoretical question: who wants these area boards? I answer that I believe the country wants them. No one in this House can sincerely say that he feels easy about the position of our great railway organisation. It has tremendous problems to face—problems of labour, problems of competition, problems of finance. As to the last, I would ask my right hon. Friend, when he proposes to spend money on the roads, not to forget railway finance, and I should say that the railways ought to have priority, though many would not, perhaps, subscribe to that opinion.
I repeat, the country wants this reorganisation, and I personally look forward with anticipation to the implementation of these proposals. I entirely agree with them in their broad outline. I have, however, a certain amount of reservation about the proposals defining general administrative responsibility; they are not clear enough. When I first heard of


the idea of having area boards I hoped that some of the national figures of industry would be induced to serve on them, and I still hope they will. I mean men of national reputation. They would remove any doubt of the sort mentioned by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), that industrialists and others introduced from outside the railway organisation on to the area boards would use their position to further the interests of their own companies. I repudiate the suggestion. I really do not think they would in any circumstances abuse their position.
I hope we do not depend too much, in recruiting members for the area boards, merely on localities. I hope the Minister will look at the national scene, and compose these boards of men with well-known names and reputations, men who have achieved singular success in other fields of industrial endeavour. Such men would give great strength to the railway organisation, and as a consequence the public would have greater confidence in our railway system and all who administer it.
I have been looking up what was said on a previous occasion about the representation of the trade unions. I myself, as many of my hon. Friends do, support strongly the proposal for trade union representation and, indeed, regard it as a cardinal principle. We desire and would welcome the presence of representatives not only of the railway trade unions but also of unions representing other branches of industry. Their co-operation also would strengthen the organisation. Their experience would be of invaluable use. I believe that our railways should be able to command the finest brains and the most progressive minds that the country possesses, bath leaders of industry and leaders of the men.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West made an admission and paid a compliment. He said that he had had great doubts about the introduction of some of the outside personalities into the railway industry when the railways were first nationalised. He proceeded, very fairly, to say how much he admired the work they had done. I hope the time will come when his doubts about the establishment of area boards and their efficiency will also be removed, and that in

due time he will be able to say he admires the value of their work.
The hon. Member was, however, quite right, as were some other hon. Members, in suggesting, as they did rather positively, that the British Transport Commission have some reservations. I have a feeling that, perhaps, the wording of the White Paper indicates that. I feel—at the moment I am addressing myself to the Minister—that, as matters now stand, the men we want might not be too happy about coming forward 'because of the vagueness with which the responsibilities are dealt with in the White Paper.
Further, does the Minister think it reasonable to ask such men to do this important public work, giving up part of their time, for a two-year period only? With our taxation system as it is today—I would draw this to the attention of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies)—any remuneration which they receive, whatever it may be, will mean nothing at all to them. They will virtually, if not absolutely, be giving their labours free in the national interest. I do not understand why the two-year period was introduced. I should have thought that a period of three or four years would have been more acceptable. It is unlikely that anyone would be able to grasp the complexities of the industry within the short period of two years. One or two of them may be strong-minded enough to take firm views; they will not want to feel that if they express themselves in a certain manner it may be found convenient to remove them after two years.
These boards ought to have more strength and more authority. For example, the chairman of the area board ought certainly to be a member of the Commission. We should then have a proper chain of authority. He would take part in the deliberations of the Commission and would know the full policy for the whole of the railway structure, and he would then convey these policies to his own area board. Surely that is logical and sensible.
I have a genuine fear about the manner in which the scheme is projected by the White Paper—I do not suggest that it is more than a possibility—and that is that there may be conflict of opinion between area board members and the area


general manager. What happens then? Before we proceed any further, the position ought to be carefully defined. I do not want the new area boards merely to be tacked on to the office of the area general manager so that they have the feeling that they are there only to criticise. They should know what their authority is and how far it goes. I should be the last person in the House to suggest that they should interfere with the day-to-day management of the railways, and I hope that the type of man who would not presume to do that will be selected.
The proper functions and duties of boards of directors are well known and understood. The boards ought to have one important power which is common to most boards, and that is that all future principal administrative appointments in an area, including that of the area general manager, should be within the authority of the board. Certainly, the appointment of a new area general manager should require the endorsement of the board. After all, the board has to work with the general manager and the general manager has to work with the board. The last thing we want is to have people who are not in harmony with one another.
We believe the area boards are absolutely necessary to the structure of the railways. We have talked time and time again about regionalisation of the railways, but I have heard no concrete suggestion from the Opposition for any alternative method. The Opposition accept the need for a reorganisation; but it does not say what should be done.
The most powerful argument for such boards and the bringing in of outside men is the acquisition of new minds and experience drawn from a wide field of interest and knowledge. There may be a need for some local interest, but not an interest in time-tables and changes in the permanent way. I want to go far above that. I want these people to be pushing the area general manager to ask for more money and to reinforce him in getting that money not only from the Commission but from Parliament itself.
The appointment of the area boards will lead to greater confidence on the part of the general public in the railways. The railways are subjected to a great deal of public criticism, some justified and some unjustified; at all events, we cannot deny

that there is strong criticism. The public are uneasy about the present condition of the British railways. Men coming in from outside and looking at matters from a new angle may be able to meet many of the unreasonable criticisms and eradicate many of the ones which are justified. In this respect they can give powerful support to the area general manager, who has a task of enormous importance and is a key man in the economy of the country. The area general managers will welcome good advisers and supporters.
One thing that the boards will do is to restore good regional pride. I see an hon. Member opposite shaking his head. I mean not uniforms, different coloured flags and all the rest of but a real pride, like that in one football team as against another in friendly but keen rivalry. There will be friendly rivalry and a desire to do better than others. This cannot be done in everything, but it can be done in many things, and one of the things that we want back in the nationalised industries is the competitive element.
Further, we visualise for these appointments men who have made a mark in British industry particularly by their wise handling of labour and their knowledge of labour relations. They can help to bring into the industry a new approach, a new human touch. One of the great complaints about large industries today is that the top men never make real contact with the men down below. One of the very important duties of the members of an area board should be to make that intimate personal contact with railwaymen at all levels, identifying themselves with the railwaymen in their relaxation and on the social side as well as in connection with the industry's problems. We have to restore to the railwayman his pride in his craft, which has been ebbing. There are many who think that British Railways are today running with the brakes on. We must get rid of that idea.
The greater the load we can put on the railways, the more efficient will the railways be. The more freight and passengers we can make the railways carry, the easier shall we make the Minister of Transport's problem with regard to the roads. Modernising the railways would be the greatest single contribution that we could make to solving the great problem of road congestion.

Mr. Percy Collick: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of his Government is precisely the opposite to that?

Mr. Robson Brown: That is a rhetorical question. I should like the hon. Gentleman to offer me some proof, for I cannot possibly accept what he says. Every time someone has wanted to bring in a new red herring during the debate he has dragged in road transport. Let us keep to railways at the moment. I would be most ready to argue on road transport another time.
British Railways are the railroads of the country. It is not accidental that "road" forms part of "railroad." It is not accidental that the British railroads helped to build up the country's economy into the unassailable position which it held up to the turn of the century. It is only during this half-century that the position has deteriorated. The railroads are industrial arteries from factory to factory and from factory to seaboard.
Both sides of the House wish the railway organisation well. We know the huge task that it has in front of it. I believe that these proposals, with certain modifications, will make it more attractive to the best brains to give us their aid. The industry will be the better for it, and the nation will also benefit greatly.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: My hon. Friends and I can agree with much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) but we differ from his assumption that these desirable changes can only be effected by creating six area boards upon which are to be placed two to six people who will give a few hours of their spare time now and then. We do not believe that by that means the desirable ends which the hon. Member outlined will be achieved.

Mr. Robson Brown: I agree with the hon. Member. I hope that the Minister will delay the appointment of the boards until he has more than two members for them and nearer six. It would be a big mistake to start with too small a number. Let us have a proper board and not a skeleton board.

Mr. Sparks: Whether that be so or not, the proposals in the White Paper are

sheer hocus-pocus. I listened very intently to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in support of them. He was questioned on one or two occasions as to what he thought the spare-time duties of these individuals were to be.
He gave me the impression that he thought that it would be a good thing for the chief regional managers to be able now and then to break away from the burdens of day-to-day management and to consult a small select club comprising a few individuals who might meet now and then as a kind of hobby, and that he would feel greatly relieved to join this little private club and to have some pleasant discussions with them, and also a game of ping pong. He thought that by being able to break away and have a chat with these delightful gentlemen the chief regional managers would be able to solve a great many problems. The fact is that the whole of the scheme embodied here is completely superfluous, absolutely redundant and serves no useful purpose whatever.
What the right hon. Gentleman said in support of the proposal gave us the impression that the great weakness of the railway organisation at the moment is that it is so concerned with the problems of its own internal organisation that it loses sight of the wider public interest, and, therefore, it is necessary to have a few spare-time people at hand to bring pressure to bear on the chief regional managers and on their departmental officers to ensure that they take greater cognisance of the general public interest.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, because without any area boards whatsoever there is very close contact by the British Transport Commission and the officials of British Railways with all forms of public interest. I should like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the sixth annual report of the British Transport Commission, Volume 1, and to the reference on page 9 which appears to have completely escaped his attention. Paragraph 51 of the report states:
Relations with the users of transport have for a long time been highly organised so far as railway freight transport is concerned. Contacts have been maintained with the Federation of British Industries, Chambers of Commerce, the Mansion House Association, the Traders' Co-ordinating Committee, and other such bodies, during 1953, not only in regard to services and charges, but even on occasion in


regard to the future organisation of the Commission. The Commission recognise, nevertheless, that a further strengthening of commercial relations with their customers, whether as organised bodies or as individual traders, is a development much to be desired, and steps are being initiated to bring this about.
All that is completely independent of the proposals in the White Paper. I believe that these proposals are completely inopportune because there already exists, apart from the contacts which the British Transport Commission and the officials of British Railways now have with the public interest, a wide range of transport users' consultative committees.
The main purpose of those committees is to do precisely the same thing, in general, as the right hon. Gentleman is arguing should be done by the area boards. When he gave the impression that very little, if anything, had been contributed by the transport users' consultative committees to the problem of railway organisation, he was really not aware of the work that those bodies have been doing.
I should like to refer the right hon. Gentleman again to the report which I have already mentioned. Paragraph 53 says:
During 1953 the eight Area Transport Users' Consultative Committees and the Committees for Scotland, Wales and London held 51 meetings, while the Central Transport Consultative Committee met on five occasions. As in previous years, consideration of proposals for withdrawing services from railway branch lines occupied much of the time of the Committees, particularly those whose territory covers the more rural areas.
Other subjects dealt with included the adequacy of train and bus services and questions relating to both passenger and freight rail charges. Most of the Committees considered the Transport Bill prior to it becoming the 1953 Transport Act, and the Central Committee submitted to the Minister comments on behalf of all the Committees.
This is part and parcel of the activities of the British Transport Commission and of British Railways, and I think that it is a great record of contact with the public in an endeavour to organise and operate British Railways in the widest possible interests of the community.
Here we have an organisation set up of 12 transport users' consultative committees, all attached to the British Transport Commission to help it perform its public duties, and the right hon. Gentleman is now going to superimpose on

those 12 committees six more area committees and an unlimited addition to those six which the right hon. Gentleman may think it fit for the British Transport Commission to create. If there is one thing which the right hon. Gentleman is doing it is completely to strangle the initiative of the British Transport Commission, and, therefore, the railways, in carrying out their functions and purposes. That is exactly what he is attempting to do.
When we come to consider the duties and responsibilities of these area committees, it must be remembered—and I re—emphasise it-that these persons who are to number from two to six are to be part-time members; they are not going to give the whole of their time to studying the problem of the area which they are looking after. They are just to be men—I do not presume to suppose that there will be any ladies on the area boards——

Mr. M. Follick: Why not?

Mr. Sparks: Why not, if they can be found, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman intends that. These individuals are to come on these area boards to serve not a primary purpose but a subsidiary one as a kind of hobby. Their main interest will be somewhere else. They will devote themselves to this work for so many hours per week or per month, as the case may be. They will have no intimate connection whatever with the internal organisation of British Railways. What are they expected to do?
The White Paper says that they are to be responsible for the management of the railways. What exactly does that mean? Let me take one region only of the six. What does a region comprise? The Western Region, for example, covers an area from Penzance to Paddington, a distance of over 300 miles, from Paddington to Birkenhead, nearly 250 miles, and then across the whole of Wales and back to Penzance, a distance as the crow flies of approximately 250 miles.
Within this geographical triangle are concentrated some of the most important industries in the country, including coal and tinplate in South Wales, engineering, and important agricultural areas. Consider the operation that takes place within that geographical area—the immensity of


the freight train problem, the passenger services, the engineering services, motive power and a hundred and one other problems that need the closest and detailed attention of any man if he is to exercise intelligence in giving decisions from time to time on the organisation of the region.
These part-time people are to be entrusted, we understand, with the expenditure of British Railways. Presumably, they will be given responsibility for deciding how much money is to be spent, but no responsibility, apparently, for revenue earning or for charges. The whole thing must inevitably break down if charges are centralised in a central body and if expenditure is divided among six separate regions.
Revenue and expenditure are two vitally important aspects of railway organisation, and expenditure cannot be properly planned without control of the revenue-earning capacity—that is, the charges for conveying goods and commodities. I believe, therefore, that the proposal will completely break down because of the one-sided nature of the scheme, that is, the centralising of charges in a national authority, and the de-centralising of expenditure over a number of separate area boards.
Then, we are told in the White Paper that the next responsibility of the area boards will be in
promoting initiative in improving the services and facilities afforded to the public on the railways, and in effecting economies.
The next function is
ensuring that contact is maintained with transport users so that the requirements of such users in relation to the railways may be met to the fullest possible extent consistent with the general duty of the Commission.
But that is largely the function of the transport users' consultative committees. That was what British Railways were doing before ever the idea of area boards was invented. Now, we are to have superimposed on the transport users' consultative committees these area boards to do precisely the same thing.
We are told that the area boards will have the responsibility of
ensuring that proper measures are taken affecting the safety, health and welfare of persons employed by the Commission on or in connection with the railways.
That is an important function; it is, perhaps one which the area boards can

carry out. In regard to all the other responsibilities that are to be placed upon these area boards, however, is there anybody outside Bedlam who can say that two to six people, giving a few hours of their time as a kind of hobby, will be competent, will have the knowledge of internal railway organisation and will be conversant with all the demands of industry and agriculture in a region and with the traffic movements and the problems of organisation? Does anybody say that such persons will be able to tell the people who are doing the job from day to day exactly how they should perform their duties? The fact is that these area boards will prove to be white elephants.
Hon. Members opposite seem to be completely unaware of how the railways are organised. They agitated first for he removal of the Railway Executive. There might be something to be said for that, because the Executive intervened between the Commission, which was the supreme authority, and the regions and regional managers. It is true that the Minister's hon. Friends have got rid of the Railway Executive, but he is now re-establishing, not one but six bodies.
It was bad enough to have to deal with one executive, but it will be far worse to have to deal with six. We believe that the area boards are completely unnecessary, because the present basis of organisation is the best and would prove to be the most efficient. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were always proclaiming how well the old general managers discharged their responsibilities because they had the power. They were not restricted. They had the power and initiative to get the job done. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not leave things exactly as they are?
The chief regional managers now have more power to conduct the operation of their regions. They are responsible to the Transport Commission, as they should be—in the old days they were responsible to a board of directors—and the chief regional managers have at their disposal at least 15 departmental chiefs; that is to say, chiefs of at least 15 separate departments of railway organisation, men who know what is required and who have their finger on the pulse of every phase of activity and organisation of British Railways.
The departmental officers each have about 20 or more district officers carrying out directions in their regions. Each district officer is in turn responsible for staff varying in number from about 1,000 to 8,000. Throughout British Railways there are about 200 district officers, and these are the men who are in daily contact with the public and with transport users. They do not operate in a kind of closed cell. Part of their function and purpose is to maintain the closest possible contact with all the users of transport in their areas.
A district officer who is responsible for the Plymouth district of the Western Region does not require to consult somebody 300 miles away in London, a part-time individual who does the job as a hobby, as to the requirements of his own region. He knows them better than anybody else knows them. These district officers have regular conferences with their chiefs; and at the head of them is the chief regional manager, who is responsible to the British Transport Commission.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could by any means improve upon the present plan, and it is my conviction that this sort of scheme has been put forward to placate hon. Gentlemen opposite because they have a political motive in what they are doing. Therefore, the proposals which remain before us are quite unnecessary. In my opinion they will create difficulties where they do not at present exist.
The Transport Commission will find itself strangled by a network of all kinds and sorts of committees while the chief regional managers, restricted in the exercise of their initiative by the area boards on the one hand, and the British Transport Commission on the other, will be between the devil and the deep blue sea. I, therefore, say that these proposals are bad for British Railways, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late hour, to withdraw them and allow the status quo to remain.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Percy Collick: It falls to me to try to put the Opposition's point of view about the Order which the Minister has laid, and for which he seeks the approval of the House. But before I proceed to do that there is one very important though small matter about the Order itself, upon which I would invite

the Minister's comments. May be he will be able to clear it up right away. Article 10 says,
Subject to the provisions of this Scheme, the Commission may, with the approval of the Minister, delegate to any authority, subject to such conditions and limitations as the Commission may impose, any functions of the Commission not concerned or directly concerned with the operation "—
I want to stress these words—
of the railways, and, subject as aforesaid, the Commission may at any time, with the like approval revoke or vary any such delegation.
What I want to ask the Minister—and he will readily appreciate the great importance of the point I am making—is whether I am correct in thinking that under Article 10 it will be possible for the Commission to delegate to an area board responsibility for negotiating the wages and working conditions of the staff? I am sure the Minister appreciates the point, and if he knows the answer I am perfectly willing to give way to him, because it is a point which ought to be cleared up at once, if it can be.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, but I think it would be more convenient if the answer to that point and to other points which have been raised are given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary when he winds up the debate at the conclusion of the hon. Member's speech.

Mr. Collick: Very good, I am perfectly willing to accept that, but the Minister will appreciate that the trade unions and everyone concerned in this important industry consider this to be a point of very great substance.
I will only add that it has been understood all along—and we had some arguments about it in the early days of the 1953 Bill—that such powers would be held centrally. I have read every word of this Order as carefully and as diligently as I can, and I imagine that it would be perfectly possible under it for those powers to be transferred to an area authority. If I am correct on that point, then I say that neither the Minister nor the House ought to approve this Order tonight. Subject to that, we shall await the explanation to be given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
Anyone listening to the Minister today would have had no difficulty in finding the differences there were between both sides of the House on this matter, and I want to come to that aspect as quickly as I can. Before I do so there is a small point which I desire to have cleared up. When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was addressing the House three weeks ago he used these words:
There will be six boards responsible for the administration of the existing six regions which will be renamed 'areas.'"—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 1st November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 37.]
I have never heard one single word of explanation yet why it is necessary to rename the regions as "areas."
Three months hence, when this Order becomes effective, as it undoubtedly will, I imagine that the railway typists from one end of Britain to the other will be busily engaged each morning typing out the word "region" on the notepaper and substituting the word "area" for it. I should like to know why it is necessary to have this change made. I asked a Conservative opponent of mine if he could tell me the difference between the meaning of the word "region" and the word "area" and he replied "I should have thought that both have about the same meaning."

Mr. Follick: No, they have not

Mr. Collick: They may not have, as my hon. Friend says, and he knows more about English than I do. However, the ordinary person in this country does not care a fig whether the British railway system is named in areas or whether it is in regions. What practical difference does it make whether we say "regions" or "areas"? If that is not change for the sake of change, I do not know what is.
Now I want to come to the real issue about this Order—what is the real difference between us? We can determine this matter only on the basis of the case which the Government make or fail to make. I have in recent years listened to almost every speech on this subject of transport, and I stand here tonight utterly unconvinced that the Government have made a case for these proposals. I believe there must be Members on the other side of

the House who take a pretty dispassionate interest in these things, and we are bound in the nature of the case to share that view.
When we had the discussion on the White Paper, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to these area boards. I should add that the real issue contained in this Order is the question of these area boards. We differ from hon. Members opposite about their creation and whether they are necessary or not, and because of that we have a different view about the Order which is before the House.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave us two examples of what he thought the area boards would do. He said:
When, however, it comes to a question of what particular length of permanent way requires to be renewed that will be a matter for the area boards.
Is there a single hon. Member on the benches opposite who really believes it is necessary to create an area board to determine what length of permanent way needs to be relaid? If the Parliamentary Secretary went into the office of the permanent-way engineer in York or any of the other railway centres, any of our permanent-way superintendents could tell him what length of line required to be relaid. My submission to the House is that we do not need an area board to tell us that.
His second illustration was expressed in these words:
When it is a question of what locomotives require to have a major overhaul to satisfy the general standard laid down, that, again, will be a matter for the boards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 41.]
Is there any hon. Member on the benches opposite who thinks that an area board is needed to say what locomotives need a general overhaul? Any mainline locomotive driver can say what engine needs a general overhaul. If the hon. Gentleman will go down to Nine Elms, Stratford, Willesden or any of the other depots, he will soon be told. We do not need an area board to tell us that.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that an area board might be able to help on the question of seasonal travel into an area or about through trains to the Midlands or to the seasonal resorts? Does he not think an area board might be able to help on the


question of whether there was a demand for a loop line in a certain area or whether season tickets were likely to be on the increase, having regard to the increase of population or the new industry coming into the area?

Mr. Collick: I do not propose to be diverted from the argument originating from the Front Bench opposite in relation to locomotives. Any main-line engineman can say what locomotive at a depot needs a general overhaul without any area board being established.
The Minister gave us two examples of what an area board would do. One has been referred to by my hon. Friends, the question of timetables. The other was the question of railway charges. I am not sure whether the Minister is right on this point, or whether I am. What he said was:
I suggest that the application of such charges under the much freer system may be a matter which it is very appropriate indeed that an area board should be able to consider and decide upon within local limitations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 147.]
I agree that there is the qualification "local limitations," about the meaning of which I am not quite clear. Article 18 of the Order, however, states that one function which is not to be delegated to the area authority-I emphasise the word "not"—is the
general control of the charges to be made for the services and facilities provided for the purpose …

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, under the proposed charges scheme there will be much greater flexibility in charges, and it is a question of using that greater flexibility for local variations which seemed to me to be a particularly appropriate matter for the area boards to consider.

Mr. Collick: It is useful to have that explanation because I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a great deal of misunderstanding on this point amongst technical people.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry.

Mr. Collick: If the Minister is satisfied that he is correct about it, I accept his assurance readily.
Now I want to come to the other issue. When I first heard examples given of

what the area boards were to do, I thought there was so little in it on that basis that it was not worth much argument. But then, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary dropped what I thought was a bombshell. Referring to the preparation of the annual budgets, he said that the regions would submit them to the Transport Commission. Then the hon. Gentleman told us that the total expenditure on the railway system would be about £446 million, of which the area boards would be responsible for expending £445 million. What a different position that puts the area boards in. It means, in effect, that they will not have little or no power. If they are to be responsible for spending £445 million and the Transport Commission is left only with £1 million, the area boards will have quite a big job.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): Hear, hear.

Mr. Collick: I am glad to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say "Hear, hear." It makes the area boards of greater significance than most of us on this side of the House were willing to believe.
Let us look for a moment at what will happen, and how this has come about. It is no secret. I heard the present Lord Chancellor, in the old days, speaking from this Dispatch Box when the Minister was on the third bench behind. What was the plea of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on every railway debate? On this very theme of decentralisation, which is behind this Order, he said, "Let us have an inquiry, let us decentralise." I could quote indefinitely from his speeches recorded in HANSARD but I am sure the Minister will remember them as well as I do.
What actually happened? There has never been an inquiry. Even the first Chairman of the Transport Commission made clear in another place the other day that there had been no patient inquiry on this point. This scheme has been imposed on the Transport Commission at the political whim of the Government because of their hatred of nationalisation. Let us be honest about it.

Mr. Robson Brown: indicated dissent.

Mr. Collick: I do not quarrel with hon. Gentlemen opposite who oppose nationalisation. I recognise that they have a right to an opinion and a right to express it.
They cannot denationalise the railways because the railways are not sufficiently profitable to be sold, and therefore they cannot sell them out as they are trying to sell out long-distance road haulage. What, then, do they want to do? They call it decentralisation. The previous Minister of Transport ordered the Transport Commission to prepare a scheme decentralising the railways. That was done without any real understanding of the decentralisation which had already been, or was in process of being, carried out by the Commission itself.
The Government said to the Commission, "We do not know how you can do it but you must produce a scheme which decentralises the railways." Acting under these orders the Commission have made the best of a very bad and difficult job. The result is the Order which is now before the House.
I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown). It was evident that the party opposite are so used to boards of directors that we are now to have area boards because such a proposal is a little nearer to the substance of the things which hon. Gentlemen opposite were so used to in the old days. How well I remember Sir Robert Home, a distinguished member of the party opposite. I remember that he was chairman of one of the old railway companies. There was a point in having boards of directors in those days when they were handling their own investors' money.
Sir Robert Horne had an enormous number of directorships. Other directorships were very useful to certain railways with which he was associated. Is there any comparison between conditions then and conditions in which it is now proposed to have area boards in nationalised railways? We shall certainly have the nearest thing to boards of directors by having these area boards to spend enormous sums of money.
It should not be forgotten that British Railways are among the biggest purchasers in the country. Their contracts are enormous. The railway industry is the biggest single industry. The gentlemen who will sit on the area boards will

have a few things to do. They are to be part-time members. They will not be more than six in number and may be fewer in each region, and yet they are to spend £445 million.
I can tell the Minister that the wife of the ordinary railwayman is having a full-time job, with rising prices, in deciding how to spend her few pounds, and ordinary railway workers will not find it easy to accept the idea of boards which can do these kinds of things on a part-time basis.
This proposal has been forced upon the Commission. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. P. Morris) made perfectly clear, the Commission did not want it. It has been forced upon the Commission by those back benchers opposite who have been pressing the Government to do this all the time. The Minister knows that as well as I do.
So much for the functions of the boards. How will they work? There is to be the Transport Commission at the top, then the area-boards and then the chief regional manager, though I suppose that he will now be called the chief area manager.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No.

Mr. Collick: Thanks very much for that.
I am sure that hon. Members will remember that in all our railway debates since the present Lord Chancellor first took part in them, the argument has been that more power should be given to the regional general manager. The party opposite used to say, "Why should the general manager have to go to the Transport Commission? Why should he be tied to the Commission? Why cannot the system be decentralised so that the regional manager can be the boss of his own show?" That was the argument from the benches opposite, but the Government have not given him more power in this scheme. They have now introduced an area board.
I have some sympathy with the chief regional officer. He is employed by the Commission and is responsible to it, and he is now to be responsible also to an area board. Can we wonder that the Commission, in its own language, in the White Paper expressed the gravest doubts whether this arrangement would be worked properly? The Commission


expressed its concern about the possibility of difficulties arising from this set-up.
I do not know whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary wants me to repeat the words again. I should have thought everybody knows them by now. Paragraph 26, in page 11 of the White Paper, states:
There is a danger that by the establishment of boards as the area authorities an element productive of friction and lack of cohesion may be introduced.
One cannot escape that possible danger, which is foreseen by the Commission.
It is reinforced in its opinion by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. L. Thomas), who said:
… the area boards are likely to throw sand in the wheels and cause, friction in the existing managerial set-up in the regions.
The hon. Member added:
I suggest that the introduction of area boards consisting of a number of directors might throw a small spanner into the works, which, are at long last, beginning to turn smoothly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1954; 532, c. 107–108.]
Does the Minister wonder why we are opposing this scheme? At long last, as the hon. Member for Canterbury rightly says, the wheels are beginning to run smoothly, yet this is a moment when the Government propose to enforce the carrying out of the Order which creates these boards.
Anybody who knows the feelings that exist at the moment among railwaymen and the delicacy of the existing wage negotiations, anybody who has his finger on the pulse of what is happening, must be concerned, as in fact the Commission itself is concerned. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the words used by the Commission itself in pointing out the difficulties that must ensue if these constant changes are made.
It is perfectly proper that Parliament, and the House of Commons in particular, should argue as long as it likes and make decisions on political principles such as the nationalisation of the railways. That is legitimate political controversy between us. We accept it, but when the House has made its decision, as it has done in this case, and has appointed a Transport Commission with responsibilities for running the railways, the Government should leave the Commission to do the job and hold it responsible for doing it.
What competence, what experience, have hon. Members opposite to interpose boards like this—without any inquiry—into a complex and highly technical industry like the railways? In my opinion they are doing the greatest disservice possible. Because my colleagues and I understand that, we shall have no hesitation at all in voting against this Order in the Division Lobbies tonight.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member will have to get them to come from upstairs to do so.

Mr. Collick: That is something which applies equally to both sides of the House because, if this question were voted on now, there would be six hon. Members in the Lobby from the benches opposite.
We have been warned, and if this House acts in defiance of that warning it acts on its own responsibility. When the idea of these rearrangements was first put forward, the first chairman of the Railway Executive wrote a letter to "The Times." He expressed his fears on this subject in these words, just two years ago, when the idea was first mooted:
Only four years have passed since our railways underwent a considerable reorganisation, which has by no means reached finality. Great and lasting economies have been achieved through unification, and, in my opinion, it would be folly to throw these away by hasty action. The railways are one of the nation's biggest industries, and even senior officers with years of experience in their operation will be hard put to it to face another internal convulsion in so short a time. Moreover, the reaction on the railways' staffs themselves will hardly be less upsetting.…
I can add my words to those of Sir Eustace Missenden. I can imagine nothing more upsetting to the railway staffs at the moment than to have this scheme forced upon them. In my judgment, and in the judgment of my hon. Friends, this Order should be defeated, unless the Minister undertakes to withdraw it.

6.43 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The sound and fury and indignation with which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) concluded his speech did not obtain the merited applause from his back benchers, no doubt owing to the fact that they are otherwise occupied.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Where are the supporters of the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Molson: I am perfectly willing to accept the suggestion that we should have a Division on this issue now, if we could so far depart from the ordinary custom of the House. In that case, this Order would be successfully carried by the very much larger number of Conservatives here than members of the Opposition. No doubt the trial of the seven 20th Century bishops taking place upstairs is responsible for the small attendance——

Mr. Davies: That is not in the Order.

Mr. Molson: Had there been a larger attendance, especially from the Left-wing of the Party, I think that some passages in the last two speeches we have heard from hon. Members opposite would have met with stern disapproval. We have the hon. Member for Birkenhead speaking with indignation of "change for change's sake" and reproaching us for making an unnecessary change. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) got worked up and begged for the maintenance of the status quo. What a marvellous line on which the Socialist Party will go to the country at the next General Election.
I will try to justify the attitude of my right hon. Friend in re-presenting this scheme with only one modest change. We undertook that the matter would be looked at again in the light of the debates on the White Paper which took place in both Houses. That does not mean to say that the Government abdicate their right to take a decision after listening to the views which have been expressed. My right hon. Friend went into the matter with the utmost care. He was present during almost the whole of the previous debate and studied the speeches made in this House and elsewhere——

Mr. Davies: And took no notice of them.

Mr. Molson: —and came to the conclusion that in fact there was only one Amendment of any size which required to be made.
In the speeches we have heard from hon. Members opposite the main question asked has been, what are the functions of the area boards? I thought that m the earlier debate we made the position reasonably clear, but, in view of our failure on that occasion, I shall devote

the comparatively short time left at my disposal to trying to repeat the explanations then given.
It would be convenient if hon. Members looked at the White Paper which was debated on that occasion. In page 2, paragraph 6, the Commission explained what it hopes will be the new organisation. It says:

"(a) The British Transport Commission is a policy forming body
(b) The Area Authorities are also policy forming at area level and supervisory —
(c) In spite of (a) above there are certain matters of day-to-day management requiring general treatment."

Where matters require general treatment, it is still possible for the Transport Commission to ensure that there shall be the necessary measure of uniformity. That is the answer I give to hon. Members who said that by introducing this degree of devolution we ware breaking up the unity of British Railways. If hon. Members turn to page 11, paragraph 27, they will find a perfectly plain and straightforward explanation of what is intended by this new system:
The responsibilities which the Commission would place upon the area authorities in relation to the railways would be

(a) to exercise as organs of the Commission general supervision of the railway system within their areas and particularly to ensure that the policies laid down by the Commission were faithfully executed; "

The paragraph goes on under "(c)" to say:
to submit such budgets and forecasts of capital and revenue expenditure as the Commission might require.

Mr. Sparks: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the relationship of these functions to the different functions specified in the White Paper? They are not the same.

Mr. Molson: The order gives legislative effect to the principles which are explained in the White Paper. The hon. Member for Birkenhead took up especially the point I made about the responsibility of the area boards for the expenditure of £445 million out of the total expenditure of £446 million. He said that when I gave those figures he and his hon. Friends realised for the first time that the boards were intended to be really responsible authorities. I am very glad indeed that I gave those figures. Perhaps that was the only way to bring home to hon. Members opposite that this really


is intended to be a serious measure of devolution.
What is intended is that the British Transport Commission shall be a policy-making authority in the sense I mentioned on the previous occasion, that for example, it shall decide what shall be the general standard of maintenance of the permanent track. They will decide what general type of locomotive and rolling stock shall 'be produced. But the area boards will control and be responsible for the great workshops at Swindon, Doncaster and Derby, so that they will be responsible for the actual production of the rolling stock and the locomotives on the general designs approved by the British Transport Commission. The hon. Gentleman ridiculed what I said about the maintenance of the permanent way. That is a very heavy financial responsibility, but although the actual question of testing some particular length of line is a technical matter with which the boards will not be concerned, they will be responsible for the expenditure of the whole of this sum of money.

Mr. Collick: But the hon. Gentleman would admit that the deduction which I drew from that was that it was not necessary to set up area boards to achieve that purpose.

Mr. Molson: I was just coming to that point. Perhaps it is not necessary, but in the view of the Government and the Commission it is extremely desirable that boards should be set up to take decisions of that kind.
The hon. Member for Acton complained that they were to be responsible for the expenditure of money, but not for the raising of it. What will happen on the railways is what happens in any other commercial concern—or any Government for that matter—that is, all the experts will want to spend more money than is available. After the area boards have prepared budgets for what each board would like to spend upon developing the services in its area, the budgets will be submitted to the Commission the Commission may say, "In view of the amount of money available, it will be necessary to make certain cuts in the expenditure which you desire to embark upon in your area."
When it comes to deciding how a limited sum of money is to be spent upon a great and complicated undertaking, it is

necessary to decide priorities. That is an extremely difficult thing for any technical man to do. That is exactly the point at which it is desirable to have a board composed of responsible men with experience of administering other concerns, to decide where the cloth is insufficient to make the coat desired by the technical people.

Mr. Sparks: But the hon. Gentleman has got all that without area boards. It is at his disposal in the transport users' consultative committees.

Mr. P. Morris: Mr. P. Morris rose——

Mr. Molson: I can only answer one question at a time. I am glad that the hon. Member for Acton has brought up this hare about the Transport Users' Consultative Committees. It has been mentioned by several hon. Members opposite who have confused bodies representing those who use transport and boards set up to manage the railways. The point of view of the different organisations is diametrically opposed. There is always the danger that if the administration of a great concern like the railways is left in the hands of technical people, they will be more concerned with running their railways in a convenient way than with meeting the requirements of the public.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Mr. Ernest Davies rose——

Mr. Molson: No, I cannot give way. I have been given a short time in which to answer, and I am trying to deal with the points which have been raised.
The purpose of setting up these boards is to ensure that the organisation administering the railways is not only assisted by general knowledge of how to run big concerns, but is also generally representative of the people living in a particular area.

Mr. Sparks: If the hon. Member will look, he will find it is all in the Order.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) said that the members of the boards appointed by the Commission would be "Yes men." I would refer him to what I said on the last occasion, when I gave a categorical assurance on the part of the Commission that it had no intention of appointing "guinea pigs" to the boards. That assurance was given me by the Commission in order that I might give it to the House, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept it, coming as it does from the highest authority.
It is quite incorrect to suggest that the Commission which drafted these regional proposals are against the appointment of boards; and when we are asked exactly what kind of people we intend to have on them, I would refer hon. Gentlemen to paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule:
Each member of the Authority who is not a member of the Commission shall be a person who has in the opinion of the Commission had wide experience and is likely to be conversant with the circumstances and special requirements, in relation to transport, of the area of the Authority.

Mr. Sparks: What does that mean?

Mr. Molson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as capable of interpreting simple English as I am. [HON MEMBERS: "Do not be too sure of that."] I hope he will also accept that a statement of that kind drafted by the Commission is an honest expression of its intentions.
I thought that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) was less concerned than most hon. Gentlemen opposite with scoring party points. He referred to one or two matters about which he felt some doubt. He suggested—and I think that many of us would agree with him—that it would be a mistake if the existing transport areas were regarded as being eternal. In paragraph 22 of the White Paper the Commission makes it plain that at the present time it intends to continue the existing boundaries. Within those areas it considers that it may be necessary to set up smaller authorities in order still further to decentralise the day-to-day control. But the order itself gives the Commission power to make changes in the areas and the powers of these various inferior authorities.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked my right hon. Friend whether under paragraph 10 of the order it would be within the power of the Commission to delegate to the boards responsibility for important wage negotiations. The answer to that is "No." He will find that
… the Commission may, with the approval of the Minister, delegate to any authority, … any functions of the Commission not concerned or directly concerned with the operation

of the railways, and, subject as aforesaid, the Commission may … revoke or vary any such delegation:
Therefore, it would not be within the powers of the British Transport Commission to delegate to the boards wage or labour negotiations.
If the hon. Gentleman will turn to page 9 of the White Paper, which explains the spirit in which the British Transport Commission proposes to administer this, he will find that it intends to continue as it has done in the past. The Commission takes direct charge of certain specific matters and in these he will find labour relations of a major character. He can therefore be entirely assured that none of the major negotiations, which I am sure he has in mind, can, under the present system, be delegated, and it would not be the policy of the British Transport Commission to pass them on to any subordinate authority.

Mr. Collick: I now understand that the Commission cannot delegate some powers. My interpretation was that it could. I imagine the Parliamentary Secretary has legal authority for what he has said.

Mr. Molson: It is perfectly plain. At the same time, in order to make the thing quite plain, I would point to something else with which I am sure the hon. Member would agree. It would obviously be a very good thing in the day-to-day administration of the areas, where some small matter in dispute arose, for that matter to be dealt within the area and not on a national basis.
I have tried to deal with the main points which have been raised in this debate today. I have not been able to deal with all the matters which have been raised, because of the limited time at my disposal. I make no complaint of that. But I hope the House will now be prepared to pass this Order, which we believe will combine the benefits of decentralisation with the benefits of having a single policy-making body at the head.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 266.

Division No. 239]
AYES
[7.3 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Alport, C. J. M.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Gammans, L. D.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Armstrong, C. W.
Garner-Evans, E. H
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Glover, D.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Gough, C. F. H.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald


Baldwin, A. E.
Gower, H. R.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Banks, Col. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marlowe, A A. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marples, A. E.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grimond, J.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maude, Angus


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maudling, R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Mellor, Sir John


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Molson, A. H. E.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Black, C. W.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hay, John
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bowen, E. R.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Neave, Airey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicholls, Harmar


Boyle, Sir Edward
Heath, Edward
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Braine, B. R.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, H. D.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Odey, G. W.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hirst, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hollis, M C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bullard, D. G.
Hope, Lord John
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hornsby-Smith, M. P.
Osborne, C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Page, R. G.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Partridge, E.


Campbell, Sir David
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Carr, Robert
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Perkins, Sir Robert


Cary, Sir Robert
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Channon, H.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J
Peyton, J. W. W.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Kurd, A. R.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Pitman, I. J.


Cole, Norman
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Powell, J. Enoch


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Ramsden, J. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jones A. (Hall Green)
Radmayne, M.


Crouch, R. F.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kaberry, D.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Renton, D. L. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerr, H. W.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robertson, Sir David


Deedes, W. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robson-Brown, W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Leather, E. H. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roper, Sir Harold


Dormer, Sir P. W.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Russell, R. S.


Drewe, Sir C.
Lindsay, Martin
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Duthie, W. S.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Sharpies, Maj. R. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Shepherd, William


Errington, Sir Eric
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
Longden, Gilbert
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fell, A.
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Fisher, Niget
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Soames, Capt. C.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fletcher-Cook, C.
McAdden, S. J.
Speir, R. M.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
McCallum, Major D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Fert, R.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Foster, John
McKibbin, A. J.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard







Stevens, Geoffrey
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wall, Major Patrick


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Watkinson, H. A.


Storey, S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Tilney, John
Wellwood, W.


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Touche, Sir Gordon
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Studholme, H. G.
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Summers, G. S.
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Vosper, D. F.
Wood, Hon. R.


Teeling, W.
Wade, D. W.
Woollam, John Victor


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. PL. (Hereford)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Wills and Mr. Robert Allan.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Fernyhough, E.
Lindgren, G. S.


Adams, Richard
Fienburgh, W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Albu, A. H.
Finch, H. J.
Logan, D. G.


Allan, Arthur (Bosworth)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, J. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Follick, M.
McGhee, H. G.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Foot, M. M.
McGovern, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Forman, J. C.
McInnes, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Freeman, John (Watford)
McLeavy, F.


Baird, J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Balfour, A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bartley, P.
Gooch, E. G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bence, C. R.
Greenwood, Anthony
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Manuel, A. C.


Benson, G.
Grey, C, F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mason, Roy


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mayhew, C. P.


Bing, G. H. C.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mellish, R. J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hale, Leslie
Messer, Sir F.


Blyton, W. R.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mikardo, Ian


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.


Bowden, H. W.
Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S.


Bowks, F. G.
Hargreaves, A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morley, R.


Brockway, A. F.
Hastings, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hayman, F. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mort, D. L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Moyle, A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Herbison, Miss M.
Mulley, F. W.


Burke, W. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Murray, J. D.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hobson, C. R.
Nally, W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Holman, P.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Callaghan, L. J.
Holmes, Horace
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


Carmichael, J.
Houghton, Douglas
Oldfield, W. H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hoy, J. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Champion, A. J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oswald, T.


Chapman, W. D.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, W. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Padley, W. E.


Clurnie, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Coldrick, W.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Collick, P. H.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Collins, V. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Charles


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Parker, J.


Cove, W. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Parkin, B. T


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Janner, B.
Paton, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pearson, A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Peart, T. F


Dames, P.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Popplewell, E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Porter, G.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Probert, A. R.


Deer, G.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Proctor, W. T


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, T. W (Merioneth)
Pryde, D. J.


Dodds, N. N.
Keenan, W.
Rankin, John


Driberg, T. E. N.
Kenyon, C.
Reeves, J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
King, Dr. H. M.
Rhodes, H.


Edelman, M.
Lawson, G. M.
Richards, R.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)







Rogers, George (Kensington, N)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
West, D. G.


Ross, William
Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Royle, C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Swingler, S. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Sylvester, G. O.
Wigg, George


Short, E. W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Willey, F. T.


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Skeffington, A. M.
Thornton, E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Timmons, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Usborne, H. C.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Snow, J. W.
Viant, S. P.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sorensen, R. W.
Warbey, W. N.
Wyatt, W. L.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Watkins, T. E.
Yates, V. F.


Sparks, J. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)



Steels, T.
Weitzman, D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Mr. Wallace and Mr. John Taylor.


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wells, William (Walsall)

Resolved,
That the Draft British Transport Commission (Organisation) Scheme Order, 1454, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.

TELEVISION ACT (OPERATION)

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its alarm at the manner in which the Television Act is operating; and requests Her Majesty's Government to bring forward legislation to amend or repeal the Act.
In moving on behalf of the Members of the official Opposition this Motion about the operation of the Television Act, 1954, I recall the main criticisms of the Measure and the fact that the Government in those debates took a line which we submit is not working out in practice as the operation of the Act develops and as the administration of the Independent Television Authority proceeds.
It was argued that this was a way to break a monopoly, but now we see monopoly spreading in commercial television. It was argued that there would be a better service for nothing, but it is clear that the aggregate cost of both the B.B.C. and commercial television will increase. It was argued that there would be an alternative programme, balanced and carefully planned, but it looks as if the programme will be unbalanced and not carefully planned; and the whole thing is dominated by the commercial element.
It is clear that, owing to the rush methods of the Government and their

limited band of really hot supporters on this matter, the Authority has been rushed in its administration and rushed into action without time to prepare its plans, and without the Government themselves having any real ideas as to how the Act should work. As a result of the rush methods we are getting all sorts of imperfections.
The Assistant Postmaster-General said on one occasion, "Leave it to the I.T.A." Now look where he has left it: All this is very much like the handling of the Bill, for that was rushed. The Government expected the House to swallow it quickly, without reasonable examination and debate, and when we proceeded to exercise our rights to reasonable examination and debate, on this of all subjects —this new departure which was not in any Election manifesto of the Conservative Party—the Government came forth with a Guillotine Motion which made discussion and adequate examination of the Bill impossible.
Consequently, the Bill was transformed into an ill-considered, imperfect Act of Parliament, and we are suffering from that as well. From all this party political rush, and the pressure of interests, we are now suffering. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] The country is suffering too, as is indicated in a powerful and influential letter in "The Times" this morning.
Let us consider the programme contractors. I want to ask the Government what the standards of selection were and what criteria were judged by the Authority to be fitting for the selection of certain firms, undertakings and businesses as programme contractors. Did


the Postmaster-General give the Authority any advice? If so, what was the advice? Or did he not care?
Did the Postmaster-General give any advice about the political complexion of the companies to be allowed to promote programmes, and the organisations, financial institutions and industrial and business undertakings which are behind the programme contractors? We are entitled to know whether the Government gave any advice or, indeed, instructions, to the Authority on that point.
I also ask whether competition was really so limited in this allegedly anti-monopolistic field that the I.T.A. was glad to get almost anybody—because that is where we appear to have drifted—except perhaps Mr. Prince Littler, who has extensive command of music-hall or theatrical talent? The Assistant Postmaster-General informed the House not very long ago that many people had applied, that there was no shortage of applicants, and that there would be a wide area of choice.
Was there a wide area of choice, or was it limited? Indeed, did the Authority have to go round asking people to make application, or was there this extraordinary variety of choice? It does not look as if that was so. Did the Authority almost insist that a capital of £3 million or thereabouts was required, because, if that was so, it clearly meant that big aggregations of finance were necessary? That clearly ruled out people of limited means, all the relatively small people who might wish to enter this line of business.
It was bound to mean that big business was to dominate the programme contractors. We ought to know about these things. The figure may be right; I do not know, but some of my hon. Friends hold that a smaller figure might suffice for the flotation of these organisations.
On the other hand, they will be involved in a good many running costs of one sort or another. If £3 million was the figure that was almost stipulated, it means that what was required was about the equivalent to that required for the notation of a daily newspaper. In any case, if that is so, it was inevitable that big business of some sort would step in and that the little man would be out.

I will come to the consideration of some of the programme contractors later.
Incidentally, I want to raise a point with regard to Miss Dilys Powell, who is a regular contributor to one of Lord Kemsley's Sunday newspapers. May I make it quite clear at once that I am making no personal attack on Miss Powell? She is an able journalist and writes with ability on subjects within her province. Indeed, I myself, when Lord President of the Council, recommended her name to the Prime Minister for appointment as a member of the British Film Institue, so that it is quite clear that I have no personal prejudice against her, and I think that is true of my hon. Friends.
But Miss Powell is employed by the Kemsley Press; and the Act provides in Section 1 (7) that no member shall have any financial or other interest in this class of business; that is to say, the class of business of commercial television. Paragraph 5 of the First Schedule contains a provision against a direct or indirect interest in contracts, and there is in Section 1 (4) a power to remove any member of the Authority. We have to face the fact that these are the provisions of the Act, and that that is the law.
The question therefore arises, first, whether Miss Powell should remain a member of the Authority. The question also arises whether, when the contract in which Lord Kemsley or his firm are interested was discussed, she disclosed her interest, and whether she participated in any way in the decision. Was she, in fact, present at the meeting of the I.T.A.? Was there, in short, a disclosure and non-participation? Further, was this recorded in the minutes of the I.T.A., as required in the Act of Parliament?
Now, I come to what I think has come as a shock to the nation, namely, the inclusion of newspaper proprietors in the programme contractors. The Royal Commission on the Press, at any rate, got on the edge of this business, if not over the edge, in the course of its consideration of the evidence which had been taken by that Commission the bona fides or impartiality of which nobody had challenged. Indeed, its report was received with great glee, not only by the Conservative Party in this House; but by some Conservative newspapers outside, and especially those which were a little


nervous, though, on second examination, the pleasure was not so great.
In page 98, paragraph 350 of the Commission's Report, the Commission recorded that it would deplore
…any tendency on the part of the larger chains to expand, particularly by the acquisition of further papers in areas where they are already strong.
It is perfectly true that that dealt with newspapers, and I want to be fair about it, but the principle was laid down that expansion and development of the power of these great organisations was a matter of public concern and was deplored.
It is true that this quotation refers only to newspapers, but the principle against monopoly is there, and, in page 164, paragraph 615, of the report, the Commission, while making no recommendations, stated:
…we think that the scale and significance of any future combination of newspaper ownership with control of either news films or news broadcasting ought to be carefully examined.
Again, I want to be quite fair. That refers to news broadcasts.
I am perfectly sure, however, that the Royal Commission would have had in mind that a tie-up between newspapers and commercial television was an extension of the sphere of the Press into a field which had not hitherto obtained, and, therefore in principle, was a development of the monopolistic characteristics of newspapers which were certainly demonstrated in the case of Kemsley Newspapers in many areas in the country and which, in principle, must be a matter for concern in the case of great undertakings like Associated Newspapers. Therefore, I say that the Royal Commission on the Press had opinions on the subject which incline to our point of view.
It is interesting that, in the leading article in "The Times" this morning, reference is made to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Simonds, as having invoked Milton. There is a very good opening to an excellent leading article, which I commend to hon. Members opposite. It says:
The essence of the case to be made by the Opposition in the debate on the television motion in the House of Commons this evening is that the Government having started out with Milton have had to end up with Lords Kemsley and Rothermere.

It seems that references to Milton were a prominent feature of the debate in the other House, and I think he has been mentioned in this House. Well, it is a far cry from Milton to their Lordships who are at the head of these great newspaper companies, and I am very glad that "The Times" has written what I have just quoted.
Moreover, it was said by the Assistant Postmaster-General—and this is also quoted in "The Times" leading article —in this House, on 25th March, 1954:
It certainly is not the view of the potential programme companies that the scheme is unworkable. —we have had some dozens of applications from potential programme companies. Even if we whittle the number down a little, I can assure the House that the number of potential companies which are prepared to take on the job and are financially capable of doing so is far greater than we really want."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1548.]
Will somebody tell us from the Government Front Bench whether that is true or not? If it is the case that they have had applications far greater in number than they really wanted, why have they called in Lords Kemsley and Rothermere? Are we to understand that they are adopting this principle of the extension of newspaper interests and great newspaper undertakings into the field of commercial broadcasting?
In view of all this, I would ask the Government: was this principle of newspapers coming into this field carefully considered, either by Her Majesty's Government or by the Independent Television Authority? Or have the Government, with their doctrinaire, anti-monopolistic views, connived at spreading the influence of two of the greatest newspaper combinations into the field of commercial television?
There is even a third combination in it according to my information. Mr. Harold Drayton is, I think, associated with A.B.D.C., as one of the directors. That organisation is, in turn, associated with the "Daily Mail." Mr. Harold Drayton, according to my information—I am open to correction if I am wrong—is chairman and a director of an exceptional number of investment companies. He is also Chairman of Provincial Newspapers, and of United Newspapers, another chain. The latter owns 95 per cent. of Provincial Newspapers; and this is probably the third largest chain of newspapers in the country.
Our objections to newspapers coming into this business are based, first, on the principle of the Royal Commission's objections; second, on opposition to the further concentration, in the hands of a few men, of power in the formation of opinion and of public taste. Newspapers vary in their tastes, as do the tastes of readers. It is a free Press, and newspapers can do substantially what they like, short of committing libel and actionable indecency. They vary. I do not think that some of the newspapers concerned are to be trusted in the exercise of fair judgment on public taste in commercial television.
There has been some value in the relationship of the Press with broadcasting and television up to now, which means, of course, with the B.B.C. The Press has been a valuable critic of the B.B.C. It has criticised sound broadcasting and television. Some people may think that its criticism has been excessive and unjust, and others may think that the criticism could have been hotter. That is a matter of opinion.
The newspapers have commented and criticised in a lively way the programmes of sound broadcasting and television. I do not think that has done the B.B.C. any harm. It is the business of the newspapers to criticise opinions that they think ought to be criticised, whether of the Government, the Opposition, the B.B.C. or any other institution in the country. That is quite all right, and it is valuable.
Broadcasting and television under the B.B.C. have had an objective independence. They have not attacked particular newspapers, so far as I know. They have given the independent opinions of people who were before the microphone or who appeared on television. If those opinions have been controversial they usually have been answered back. The B.B.C. gives news bulletins which are objective and impartial to the best of its ability, although all of us have criticised them now and again. All that is a check upon the accuracy of news in newspapers, and indeed, upon the propagation of biased or ignorant opinion. There is a countercheck, therefore, on both sides; but the most valuable check is the criticism in the newspapers of sound and television broadcasting.
Now come the commercial programme company sponsored by Lord Kemsley, the commercial company sponsored by Lord Rothermere, and the company associated with Provincial Newspapers and United Newspapers. Which newspapers of these groups will criticise the commercial television programmes with which those newspapers are associated? Who will appear in certain London evening newspapers writing criticisms of T.V. programmes, such as has happened from time to time, even by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Who is going to knock the programmes of the commercial companies about and subject them to critical examination?
It is most unlikely that those newspapers will wish their own programme contractors to be criticised. It is most unlikely that they will want these programme contractors to run in conflict with the general lines of policy and taste of the newspapers themselves. It is worse than that. For a good many years now there has been a general, but not universal, practice among the newspapers in Fleet Street that they do not attack each other. It is a great pity.
Much public interest and amusement are lost by newspapers not attacking each other. It used to be good fun. There is a well-known saying, "Dog don't eat dog." [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask 'Tribune'."] I do not think that hon. Members ought, from rather mean motives, to bring in extraneous matters; but it is all right. I can take it, but Government supporters might do me the courtesy of listening. I am seeking to move this Motion in a reasonable way and according to reasonable arguments. I am not going to be provoked into mere abusive knockabout, even by the bad conduct of hon. Members on the Government benches.
We now have a situation in which great newspaper proprietors, with great newspaper chains behind them, are coming into the television business. They are entering it in a way which will extend the power of the great Press empires into television and will diminish the free functioning of television on the one hand and of the Press on the other. They should be independent organs of entertainment and opinion, and quite free to criticise each other.
Incidentally—if it is an incident, which I doubt, because it is a most curious and extraordinary incidental happening—the first two newspaper chains which came into this business were Tory. The Government are playing the fool with public relations. We have caught them out at least twice using the taxpayers' money for the spreading of party propaganda on the part of Her Majesty's Government—twice, and they know it. In this case of commercial television, they have deliberately done it, not for the purpose of competing with the B.B.C., but in order that capitalist influences and power may be brought into commercial television so that the minds of the people may be influenced.
Now the Government have gone further than that, by themselves presumably assenting to it. I do not believe that the I.T.A. would have done all this without keeping in touch with the Minister. The Government may answer, "It has nothing to do with us. It is purely the business of the Independent Television Authority." If the Government tell me that they do not know anything about it, that they were not kept informed and they were never consulted—if, indeed, they did not give directions—I tell the Government that I do not believe it. I do not believe it is true.

Sir Beverley Baxter: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the first two newspaper groups to come into commercial television are Tory. Is he certain that the "Daily Herald" representing Socialism, or the "Tribune," or any Liberal group applied? I think that only the two newspaper groups mentioned did apply. It is not a case of exclusion.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Morrison: What is the good of hon. Members shouting "Answer" before I have had half a second in which to answer? Hon. Members opposite are not as well behaved as people at a street corner meeting.
I was coming to the point which the hon. Gentleman has quite properly and quite legitimately raised. In fact, I only wish to reinforce my point in order that it may sink in, and to say that the first two newspaper groups are Conservative and that I imagine that the direction of the third group which I have mentioned, namely, Provincial Newspapers and

United Newspapers, is also Conservative, although it is only fair to say that some of its newspapers are Liberal. However, from what I know about Liberal papers in a Tory chain, there will not be much Liberalism about it, at least not in any recognisable form.
Already this "Daily Mail" group, a group that has to be so impartial, so high-minded on commercial television and which must not concern itself with party politics, has delivered a sharp and unfair attack upon Her Majesty's Opposition because we have dared to put down this Motion today. Already, therefore, the "Daily Mail" is beginning to champion the interests of the television programme company with which it is associated. It is a contractor and a participant in one of the companies which are floating programmes.
In reply to the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter)—and this I have on my notes—it is only fair to the Independent Television Authority to say that it would have considered other applications had it received them. I go further than that and say that it is perhaps true that the Independent Television Authority went out of its way to ask newspapers.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: It is.

Mr. Morrison: I am saying so. What is the hon. Gentleman so miserable about? I do not want any help from hon. Gentlemen interested in advertising. We know quite enough of their pressure on the Government and of the miserable, cowardly way in which the Government surrendered to them.
It is not only the case that there was an opportunity for other newspapers to apply, but I will be additionally fair by adding that the I.T.A. actually approached some of those newspapers to come in. But had they wanted to come in, they could have applied, and, if they did not, there was no obligation to apply. Moreover, it is not every newspaper which has behind it the financial resources of the "Daily Mail" group, the Kemsley group, or the other. I could mention a number of newspapers which are very respectable and decent daily papers, but which, in all probability, would not have the financial resources behind them to enable them to enter this business.
It happens that all the newspaper interests which up to now are in this business—what the future may hold, I do not know—are Tory newspapers, or pre-dominantly Tory newspapers. I should have thought that any Government ought to have had the decency to put the brakes on such a situation developing in connection with a so-called Independent Television Authority.
What is going to happen? The television programme contractors are in regions, and in some regions it may be that a newspaper group associated with a regional contractor will have its newspapers circulating predominantly in that region. Therefore, we get an additional tie-up and an additional intensification of the offence.
We do not rest our case entirely on the point that it is the Tory newspapers which have evidently been offered the first facilities. We say—and we say this because we are friends of a free Press—that, irrespective of newspaper opinions, or of particular newspaper opinions, the newspapers should not be concerned in this development at all. We believe that it is bad for commercial television and bad for the Press, and I think that there are some hon. Members opposite who will agree with us on that point.
One can hardly assume that the Kemsley chain of newspapers will, as I have said, criticise the programme contractor with which its papers are associated, and that is so in the case of Associated Newspapers also. Nor will the T.V. thus controlled conflict with the convenience of the relevant newspapers. For the rest, as we anticipated would be the case, there are too many big interests in this business, and too much of the existing aggregations of capital and finance.
I do not wish to be dogmatic regarding whether it is desirable or not, but it is significant that, so far as I know, no company has been floated for public subscription in order to become a programme contractor. It could be argued that such a company would attract shareholders who were after a profit, though it is not certain that they would get one. However, it might attract some who wished to attend the annual meeting of such a company in order to have their arguments about the company, and that might have been an advantage.
As I say, the present set-up is drawing upon the existing aggregations of big business capital. They are the people who, in the name of anti-monopoly, are to be the "big boys" and the programme contractors of commercial television. All the claims of the Conservative Party about being the friend of the little man are revealed as hypocritical; because big business is to control the contractors and therefore the programmes. The little man is not going to have enough money to spend on advertising in television programmes. Big Tory business, which is tied up with the Conservative Party, is to get the advantage, both as the controller of the programme contractors and as the body which will spend substantial sums on advertising.
Among the directors of A.B.D.C. is Sir Robert Renwick. I have known Sir Robert and his father before him. Prior to nationalisation he, with his father, I think, was prominently associated with private electricity supply. I think that here I ought to mention a rumour which is freely circulating, because, in justice to Sir Robert, it ought to be ventilated. The Government ought to be given an opportunity to reply to it, and we shall expect them to do so, clearly and categorically. I think it is in Sir Robert's interest, no less than in the public interest that the information should be given.
Because certain things are being alleged, I would ask the Government, first, whether Sir Robert has political connections with the Government; second, whether he has been active in contributing to or in raising money for the Conservative Party; and, third, whether, before the actual decision of the Government to support commercial television, there was any understanding between Sir Robert and the Conservative leaders on the question of Government policy regarding this matter. I do not allege any of these things, because I cannot be sure, but I think that as they are being said, the question ought to be asked in the House, and that the Government ought to give us a clear and unequivocal reply.

Mr. John Rodgers: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I think that in all fairness one ought to ask him whether any of the Labour interests in these contracts subscribe to Labour Party funds.

Mr. Morrison: I do not know. Let me say in all fairness that we did not let the contracts. I am asking how far there was Government information, guidance or influence behind these matters. I believe the freer this business is from political parties and their agents, the better it will be, irrespective of whom they may be and with whatever political party they may be associated.
In our submission the Act is not working out as the country was led by the Government to believe it would. Even the "Daily Telegraph," in a leading article, has said this, and is sharply critical of how the whole business has worked out. It is disappointed in the contracts which have been awarded, and thinks that great mistakes are being made. It is obviously disappointed at the results. And the "Daily Telegraph" is a paper which is usually very favourable to the Government and to the Conservative Central Office, and is certainly not usually favourable to any point of view associated with the Labour Party.
What is the consequence of this scheme? Far from being economic, far from it leading to a reduction in costs and to a better public service, it is certain that, in the organisation of these various rival undertakings, costs will be duplicated which need not have been duplicated—at any rate to anything like the same extent—had the B.B.C. been given the opportunity it sought to run a business which would have been competitive within its own organisation, as, indeed, the regions are in sound broadcasting.
It is also the case that an unholy and undignified scramble is proceeding between the B.B.C. and the rest for talent and staff. We read of this broadcaster or that television personality being bought up by the commercial people, or that the B.B.C., by a contract over a period of years—and presumably by giving financial concessions—has retained the services of a given person.
It may, of course, be argued that that is good. It is good for the artistes, yes. The hon. Member for Southgate (Sir Beverley Baxter), as a journalist, nods sympathetically. He likes that sort of thing——

Sir B. Baxter: Sir B. Baxter rose—

Mr. Morrison: I do not blame him. I understand it.
I am not sure that this game of building stars and possibly paying them fabulous salaries is socially, or morally, or financially good for the community. Someone has to pay for it all at the end of the day—and at the beginning of the day, too—and this process which is going on will add to the costs of television. It will be a miserable business of bargaining for particular people, and the pursuit and the challenge is going on all the time.
Moreover, in some cases, the B.B.C. is also having its staff tempted away by better offers. It is their own business, of course—this is a free country—whether or not they leave the B.B.C. to go somewhere else, but what is happening is bound to be costly. It will put up B.B.C. as well as commercial television costs. Whether, in the end, these people who are going over to commercial television will find things as secure and as rosy as they think, is anyone's guess, because it is not certain that these concerns will be financially successful.
The principles of the Government elements, poor as many of them were, have broken down, as is shown in the letter to "The Times" this morning, to which I have referred. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Although the signatures include some Conservative names it is received with contempt by hon. Members opposite. This is one of the things the signatories say:
One of the greatest dangers of commercial television is that it puts power up to auction—and power is 'knocked down' to the highest financial bidder. Television is too vital a force for good or evil to be sold in the market place.
The letter ends:
If a fair balance cannot be achieved, would it not be better to make sure that active political partisans of all parties are excluded from key points in this vitally important new organisation?
We say that the Act is being administered in a way which conflicts with the undertakings and promises of Ministers; conflicts with the intention of the general body of opinion of this House, and conflicts even with those elements of public opinion which supported the Bill. In those circumstances we think it reasonable to ask for this law to be repealed, or, at any rate, amended, and, therefore, with confidence, we submit that the case for the Motion is proved.

7.55 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): The Government very much welcome this debate. It will give the House an opportunity to express its confidence in Sir Kenneth Clark and the Independent Television Authority, and allow that body, I hope, to get on with the job entrusted to it under the Television Act.
Less than four months have passed since the Act became law. The I.T.A.'s programmes have not yet gone on the air, the contracts with the potential programme contractors have not yet been settled or signed, nor have the arrangements for the production of news yet been decided. I am afraid that I cannot agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has just said—that the whole show has broken down. At this stage, I cannot see how it is possible for the House to come to a considered judgment which would justify the type of action which the Opposition recommends this House to take.
It is very interesting to know that the first complaint that the I.T.A. had introduced the element of politics came from the "Daily Express." That newspaper objected to the appointment of Sir Robert Fraser as director-general on the grounds that he was of the Left—that he had been a Socialist candidate. I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the main complaint in the Motion now before the House is that the I.T.A. has unduly favoured the Right. The Motion expresses alarm at the way in which the Television Act is operating, and suggests that the I.T.A. has failed in its duty because it has included some programme contractors who are newspaper owners.

Mr. H. Morrison: I only want to make it clear—as I thought I did in my speech—that our biggest criticism is of the Government themselves. They were responsible for the Act and have considerable responsibility for its administration. It would not, therefore, be right to assume that we are putting all the blame on the Independent Television Authority, or are making any personal attack on the Authority or its members.

Mr. Gammans: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman went very near to that,

and certainly, in what he said a week or two ago, he was accusing the Authority of political partiality.
What, I think, have been ignored up to now in this debate, and what the right hon. Gentleman completely omitted in his charge, are the I.T.A.'s powers of control, which are embodied in the Act itself and, in particular, in Sections 3 (1, c), 3 (1, f) and the last part of Section 3 (2). These are a cardinal part of the scheme which Parliament approved. They provide, first, for impartiality in the presentation of news; and they demand impartiality on matters of political and industrial controversy, and a complete banning from all programmes of the opinion of the programme contractors on these matters. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman is to make the charge which he has made, he, at least, ought to have had the good sense, if I may say so, to put forward those points as well, because that is the cardinal part of the Act, which we discussed in this House night after night.
We suggest that the enforcing of these safeguards is one of the prime responsibilities of the I.T.A. I assure the House that the I.T.A. intends to carry them out, and that no programme contractor, whether he be a newspaper proprietor, or whether he be of the Right or the Left, will be allowed to influence his programmes in a political direction. In other words, Lord Rothermere and Lord Kemsley will no more be able to influence their programmes to the Right than Mr. Sidney Bernstein—who, I understand, is a fully paid up member of the Labour Party—will be able to influence his to the Left. As to news items and newsreels, the programme contractors will have nothing whatever to do with them. The I.T.A. has in mind that these will be provided by a specialised organisation, about which there cannot be the slightest criticism.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Is it intended that the programme contractors shall not deal with issues of current policy and controversy at all?

Mr. Gammans: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will read the relevant Sections of the Act he will find that they must treat them with impartiality. If they do not deal with them impartially, it will be the responsibility of the I.T.A. to take action under the powers which this House has given it.

Mr. Mayhew: There will be a marked contrast between the treatment of current issues on television and their treatment in the newspapers.

Mr. Gammans: I do not know what that has to do with it. A newspaper is not compelled to deal with either news or views with impartiality, but programme contractors have to do so and it is one of the charges laid upon the I.T.A. under this Act to see that this is done. I can assure the House that my noble Friend would regard it as a grave dereliction of duty if the I.T.A. did not enforce this provision.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: We should be happy to believe in the safeguards that have been stated if it were not for the fact that certain safeguards had not been exercised, namely, the case of Miss Dilys Powell, who is a servant of the Kemsley Press chains gaining control of additional newspapers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): May I appeal to the House to realise that a large number of Members want to take part in this debate in a very short time, and I hope that these interventions will not take up the time of the House.

Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman asked what was the main criterion which had led the Authority to choose these programme contractors. The answer is that the I.T.A. had to decide whether the company applying had the knowledge, skill and resources to put on a balanced programme. The alternative indictment which the right hon. Gentleman put forward was that it was wrong to have the Press at all in connection with programme companies.
I must remind him that during the Committee stage over 150 Amendments were put down by the Opposition and at no time in those long and weary discussions we had in this House was the question of the Press raised at all. If the Opposition felt that the Press should be excluded, the least that they could have done was to put down an Amendment. I would suggest that it is very difficult to think of a system of independent television which does exclude newspapers.
Experience throughout the world, and especially throughout the Commonwealth, shows that television companies are drawn from three main sources. The

first is the radio and electronic manufacturing industry; the second is the entertainment interests, and the third is the newspapers. That is the experience throughout the Commonwealth. For example, in Australia the "Daily Mirror," which has a lot to say in this controversy, owns five commercial broadcasting stations and has just applied for a licence to run the Sydney commercial television station. Why, therefore, should the newspapers in this country be barred from these interests. Parliament has never decided that they should be and there is nothing wrong in their putting forward applications.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Royal Commission on the Press and quoted, quite correctly, that part of the Report which says:
We should deplore any tendency on the part of the larger chains to expand, particularly by the acquisition of further papers in areas where they are already strong.
This only relates to Press chains gaining control of newspapers. It cannot be taken as implying that they should have nothing to do with television. These companies, as I hope I have made clear, will not be responsible for the news programmes and will be subject to the very wide powers of control given to the Authority under this Act. In other words, they cannot transmit news: let alone can they comment on it.
The other point which the right hon. Gentleman made was that if we have newspapers as programme companies there might be the danger of newspapers stiffing criticism because same of the Press are in the scheme. That may be true, but I doubt it. There has been no reluctance by the Press up to now to criticise competitive television, and, as to the future, it seems to me a very wide thing to suggest that because two newspaper proprietors are involved all the other newspapers will have nothing to say.
For example, are we to assume that "The Times," "Manchester Guardian," "Daily Herald," "News Chronicle," "Spectator," "New Statesman" and the "Observer" are all to keep quiet over the programmes put out by two programme contractors simply because they do not happen to be associated with them? I think that the whole idea of that is complete fantasy.
May I describe the four companies who will provide programmes? There is, first, the Broadcast Relay Services "Daily Mail" group. In this case Broadcast Relay Services will have no less than a 50 per cent. interest in the company, and they have a very wide experience in this field. They relay broadcast programmes in the United Kingdom, they operate commercial television in Canada, and run commercial broadcasting stations in the Colonies. This company, incidentally, in the days of the Labour Government, was given permission to operate commercial radio stations in Jamaica, Trinidad, Malaya and other parts of the Commonwealth. It is rather amusing for me that hon. Members opposite are so solicitous about the people in this country, but when it comes to the Colonies their care is less noticeable.
The second group is the Winnick-Kemsley group, and here Kemsley newspapers will have a one-third share and the rest will be held by the entertainment interests.
I was asked about Miss Dilys Powell.

Mr. George Darling: What about Mr. Wolfson?

Mr. Gammans: I do not know whether he is in or not. Miss Dilys Powell is a critic on the "Sunday Times" and, as such, is in the employ of Lord Kemsley. I am informed by the I.T.A. that when the application by the group in which Lord Kemsley is concerned was considered by the I.T.A., Miss Dilys Powell behaved in a perfectly correct manner, and, as specified in the First Schedule of the Television Act, paragraph 5, which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, she declared her interest and took no part whatever in the discussions or in the voting.

Mr. Donald Chapman: There was no voting.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman ask?

Mr. Gammans: The actual recording in the minutes of these facts was omitted at the time, but it was put in later. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would remind the House that my noble Friend in regard to these appointments has not

merely a first interest, as it were, but has a continuing interest, and it is his duty from time to time to satisfy himself that Miss Powell, or anyone else on the I.T.A., has no financial interests which may conflict with her duties on the I.T.A., and that my noble Friend proposes to carry out.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand that the Postmaster-General has taken a decision not to interfere with Miss Powell's appointment?

Mr. Gammans: I do not say that. Up to now my noble Friend is satisfied that the action taken by Miss Powell was quite proper, and he does not propose to intervene now.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Postmaster-General regards Miss Dilys Powell's present financial interest such as not to make her unsuitable for a position with the I.T.A.?

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. He regards her present financial interest—that is, her tie-up with Kemsley—as in no way conflicting up to now with her duty to the I.T.A. as laid down under the Act. But that does not mean that he is relieved from any obligation to fulfil the conditions of the Act for the future. The third company is Granada Cinemas, the Bernstein Group. This will be run completely by entertainment interests. Finally, there is the Associated Broadcasting Development Company, which at present includes programme interests and radio manufacturing interests
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about Sir Robert Renwick. He might have given me notice of that, because I should have been most pleased to give him the information for which he asked, had he given me notice and time to look it up.

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Gentleman is not able to answer that, perhaps he would be good enough to let me know in some way or to make it public.

Mr. Gammans: I will gladly look into that. It would be difficult for the I.T.A. to have found a more balanced group within the limited field of organisations capable of undertaking the heavy task which the House has imposed upon them.
I should like to tell the House of the inquiries and discussions that have taken place between potential programme contractors and the Government and the I.T.A. These fall into two distinct categories. The first are the preliminary and exploratory discussions, which took place before the Act was passed. The second group is the discussions between the I.T.A. and the programme contractors, of which the I.T.A. has furnished me with particulars. In these my noble Friend was not involved in any way. The right hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance that the Government had not interfered with I.T.A. I give him that assurance fully and unreservedly: there has been no interference whatsoever.
As regards the first category—the exploratory discussions between the potential programme contractors and my noble Friend—there were 98 applications. These included newspapers of the Right, Left and Centre, and also cinema and other interests. Many of these applicants automatically fell out when it became clear after the publication of the White Paper in 1953 that there was to be no direct licensing of programme companies.
Next, we come to the second category. The I.T.A., which was appointed at the beginning of August, put an advertisement in the main national and local newspapers on 25th August, inviting applications from companies to become programme contractors. Two months later, the I.T.A. had received 28 applications, of which only six were from firms or companies which by themselves at that stage were capable of undertaking the heavy financial responsibility of becoming programme contractors. From these the I.T.A. selected four potential programme companies, whose names I have given to the House.
So far as the newspapers are concerned, many did not apply at all. Those which did not apply included the "Manchester Guardian," Odhams, the "Daily Herald," the "Daily Express," the "Daily Mirror," the "News Chronicle," and the "Daily Telegraph," all of whom had shown some interest in the earlier stages. The Authority could reasonably have taken the view that it could not consider giving a contract to a newspaper—or, for that matter, to anyone else—if it did not ask for one. No applications whatever have been received from these newspapers which I have named.
The Authority then took what I regard as most exceptional steps to discover whether some of these newspapers, especially non-Conservative newspapers, had not submitted applications because of a misapprehension. The I.T.A., therefore, approached Odhams, the "Manchester Guardian" and the "News Chronicle" to see whether the absence of their applications was due to a deliberate decision on their part or was due to a misunderstanding.

Mr. Morrison: Lack of money.

Mr. Gammans: I am glad to hear that the right han. Gentleman answers for all these newspapers. That is more than I could do.

Mr. G. Darling: It was wrong to approach them, anyhow.

Mr. Gammans: The "Daily Mirror" was not approached in this way, because exactly the same point had been made perfectly clear to it by letter as late as 23rd July this year. There has, therefore, been every conceivable opportunity for newspapers——

Mr. Shackleton: Mr. Shackleton rose——

Mr. Gammans: Let me finish the sentence—other than the two now in the the scheme, to be represented in the scheme had they so wished.

Mr. Shackleton: Who wrote the letter to the "Daily Mirror" on 23rd July? The I.T.A. was not then in existence.

Mr. Gammans: The Postmaster-General.

Mr. Morrison: Then you do interfere?

Mr. Gammans: The I.T.A. did not exist then.

Mr. Shackleton: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not interfere.

Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether the Postmaster-General had interfered with the I.T.A. On 23rd July, there was no I.T.A.; it came into existence in the first week of August. It may well be that some of these other interests, and, possibly, even the C.W.S.—there is no earthly reason why it should not make application—will want to come in at a later date.
Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, what has been criticised in this


debate is not the Government, but the action taken by a statutory body, the Independent Television Authority. So far as I am aware, this is the first time in our history that such a body has been accused of political partiality. Much of the legislation passed in this House since the war, including the nationalisation Acts, has entailed the setting up of statutory bodies. I hope that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will feel that it was an unfortunate charge even to have insinuated. If he persists with it. I can imagine that in future very few public men of any repute will want to serve on a statutory body.

Mr. Morrison: Conservative Quislings. Ask the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Gammans: The basic policy which has influenced the Government in entrusting the operation of the Act to a statutory body is best illustrated in the following words:
In deciding whether the British Electricity Authority should be a Government Department or a public corporation, Parliament decided on the latter because it did not want it to be interfered with by politicians.
Those are the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself which he used in his evidence to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on 26th February last year. It is to avoid any suspicion of interference by politicians or the use of political pressure in Parliament that the power of appointing contractors has been entrusted to the I.T.A.

Mr. Morrison: Kemsley and Rothermere.

Mr. Gammans: I do not suppose I have succeeded in dispelling the alarm which the Opposition apparently feels in this Motion of censure. At least. I have tried to explain that there is not the slightest justification for it. I suggest that this is nothing more than an attempt to fight the battle of the Television Act over again—and that Act was voted on line by line four months ago.

Mr. G. Darling: It was guillotined.

Mr. Gammans: I know that the Opposition dislikes the Act very much, but I think it is fair to suggest that its heart it not in this attack. How could it be after four months of operation, before the programmes have gone on the air? If the Opposition proposes to make the

work of the I.T.A. one of the election issues, we on this side will gladly meet that challenge. Approximately 1 million homes will have television sets capable of receiving an alternative programme——

Mr. Chapman: When?

Mr. Gammans: —by next autumn—quite apart from those who put adaptors on to their older sets. All these people and their friends and dependants will have a good opportunity to see what the new programmes are like and to judge for themselves. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is a good election cry to say, "Vote for me and I will take away these programmes," I for one would not dissuade him from it.
The success or failure of this scheme will not depend on what the Opposition think about it. It will depend on what the viewers think about it. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South sees himself as a sort of Sir Galahad with a mission to save the British people from a fate worse than death. He thinks that the attitude he has taken up is popular, but I am certain he is wrong. I am equally certain that the country welcomes the chance of having another programme provided by an authority with an independent outlook and that they do not want their television confined to the enterprise and energy of a single monopoly, however good the B.B.C. may be.
The Opposition in every walk of life favour rationing, restrictions and the like, whereas the Conservative Party do not. Every time the Opposition make that clear the better we like it. I say that it is for the people themselves to decide what the new television is like, and the I.T.A. should now be allowed to do its job and be judged by the merits of its programme.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: The Assistant Postmaster-General said that the heart of the Opposition cannot be in the attack on the Authority because we are attacking it after only four months. The answer to that is that we have already seen enough of its operations.
First of all, we know that this Act lays down that we are to have independent


members on the Authority, really independent people with no financial interest in any programme contractors. According to Section 5 of the Act, these people are to see that there is an adequate supply of programmes between contractors who are really independent. It is against that background that the independence of the chosen members of the Authority has to be judged, as well as the independence of the programme contractors. I want to say a few words about that.
First of all, let us take the case of Miss Dilys Powell. I am very sorry, indeed, that the Assistant Postmaster-General read the statement given to him by the Independent Television Authority. Miss Dilys Powell is an employee of Lord Kemsley's staff. She was present at the first meeting at which a contract was granted to the Kemsley-Winnick Group and, subsequently, I put a Question down about Miss Dilys Powell's membership of the Authority. But before that she gave a statement to the "Evening Standard." It went something like this—and I paraphrase it, although I looked it up about half an hour ago to refresh my memory—" I did not have to declare my interest because there was no vote. In fact, the thing went through and it was all over before I knew that I was even involved." Those are the remarks of the person concerned as compared with some apologia issued afterwards by the Independent Television Authority that they had failed to record something in the minutes.
Frankly, I prefer to have Miss Dilys Powell's version of the proceedings of the meeting, and we then have to ask for a reply to the question; what exactly happened at the meeting? If we say, in fact, that the thing just slipped through, as she says, and "I did not need to declare my interest and I did not realise that I ought to have done so," it is a very different story to what the Assistant Postmaster-General has told us. Frankly, I accept her word as against his, because she was there and she was standing up for herself in the statement she gave to the Press afterwards.
Secondly, let us look a little further at the implications of Miss Dilys Powell's membership of the Independent Television Authority. In Section 6 of the Act it is stated that any contract made between the Authority and the programme

contractors must contain provisions to secure that, in the case of a breach of the contract, the Authority has to impose a penalty on the programme contractor. What is the situation here? Are we, in fact, to have Miss Dilys Powell sitting as judge and jury on her employer as to whether, in fact, he is obeying the contract? It is no good saying that she can declare her interest and absent herself, because that is against the whole idea of the earlier part of the Act which says she should have no such interest that would in any way prejudice her.

Mr. Philip Bell: What the First Schedule says is that if any matter comes up about a contract in which she has an interest she must take no part in it, and, therefore, she could not have a discussion about imposing a penalty.

Mr. Chapman: What the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to read is the earlier part of the Act where it disqualifies people with any real interest in these programmes from ever being a member of the Authority in the first place. It is quite wrong that the lady, honourable and well intentioned as she may be, should ever be there as judge and jury on her employer when matters of the controls of public opinion are at stake, and it is quite wrong that she should be required to remain there.

Sir B. Baxter: What kind of a person does the hon. Member visualise? It must be apparently someone from Mars, detached altogether from this world.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I made an appeal earlier that these interventions should be as limited as possible.

Mr. Chapman: I will answer the point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I knew what the hon. Gentleman was going to say. The Act provides that nobody shall be appointed or shall have an interest as shall be likely prejudicially to affect the discharge of his functions. In most of these cases they have found somebody to fill the Bill, and there is no reason why somebody should not be found to replace Miss Dilys Powell——

Mr. G. Darling: It would be better to get rid of Kemsley.

Mr. Chapman: Yes, he should be got rid of in the first instance. We were told


that there was to be real competition between really independent programme contractors. Instead, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has said, we have a ring of monopolies in various areas and no real prospect of competition.
Furthermore, as far as we can gather from the private inquiries we have been able to make, there is no reason to suppose that the I.T.A. has made enough inquiries to make sure that those people will really be independent of each other in terms of the supply of finance. In several of the cases quoted as already receiving franchises, only a small part of the capital is now known, and nobody knows where the rest is to come from. In one case it is tens of thousands of pounds, in another it is a few hundreds of thousands, and it is expected that the final need will be £2 million or £3 million. What guarantee have we that the rest of the money to be provided by those people who now have contracts will make them independent of each other? They have been granted the franchises and they can now become a mass of interlocking control exercised by people who can put up the money.
Moreover, look at the indecent rush with which the whole affair has been handled by the I.T.A. Contrary to my right hon. Friend, I do not entirely absolve the I.T.A. Look at what has been happening. I have put Questions in this House which have elicited the following information: first, that nobody yet knows how many hours of broadcasting are to be allowed from these new stations. Secondly, nobody yet knows the charges for advertisements; the Authority has yet to fix them. Thirdly, nobody has any idea how many minutes of advertising per hour there are to be because that has to be agreed between the Minister and the I.T.A. and we are told that it has not yet been agreed. Lastly, nobody knows which are the exempted programmes from the point of view of advertising.
Against this background of absence of knowledge what happens? The Independent Television Authority hands out franchises to people whose financial backing they do not know, to do jobs that cannot yet be defined, and to put on programmes whose length and advertising content they know nothing about. It is

clear that the reason why this has been done is because the newspapers and one or two big financial interests have rushed in to corner the market before anyone else can get in.
Now I come to one or two points which implicate the I.T.A. still further. We have no safeguard in the Act that these contracts can never be assigned. It is possible for any independence that there may be in the beginning between programme contractors to disappear in the assignment and swapping round of contracts, and a final cornering of the position by one or two people. Again there is no real evidence that even the programmes will be independent, for the latest news we have is that probably the circuits will sell programmes to each other. As Mr. Randolph Churchill has put it, they will take in each other's washing and make it look like a programme run from London anyway. What competition will there be in that set-up?
Now I come to the position of the Chairman of the I.T.A. It does not implicate him, but he was absent in America when the first three of these disputed franchises were granted, and nobody knew how far he was responsible for granting them. I now see that he is advertising himself as writing a book on nudes in most of his time, and remembering a few notes on commercial television in between. If this is the way in which an alternative television programme is being run, it is about time that amending legislation was brought in.
I have one suggestion to put to the Lord Privy Seal. Why does he not suggest as a compromise to be proposed to this House that the Independent Television Authority should be reconstituted, should be rid of the "Do Goods" who are there now and who are completely powerless against the powerful interests they are pitted against? Why does he not replace them with people who can provide the public with a really independent television programme and, if necessary, come to the Opposition and negotiate on the question as to whether that service should accept advertisements or not? That would be much better than the hated programme contractors with the political bias that their first choice has now assumed. It would be a real possibility of compromise between the Government and the Opposition. It would give a strong alternative to the B.B.C; we


could negotiate on the question of advertisements and it would give what so many Government supporters have wanted up to now. No wonder that we have introduced this Motion of censure rightaway. We have seen in the last few months enough of the operation of the Act to merit very much this Motion.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Walter Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): There are obviously some disadvantages in these duodecimo Motions of censure because it is very difficult to fit in all who wish to speak. Therefore, I shall keep my remarks brief. That is easy, because it has turned out that what we are discussing is a Motion of censure on Miss Dilys Powell. To bring down the whole House of Commons now for this second-rate purpose is one of the pettiest and meanest things that has ever been tried in Parliament.
The hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) led off with that as his main charge. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) spent a great deal of time on it also. Really, if we have nothing better to discuss than this McCarthyist inquest by the Opposition into the particular conduct of a lady, whom I have never met but for whom I have the highest respect, based on the quality and skill of her writings, it brings out very strongly a fact that has been stated by a great authority on these matters. It is that it is undesirable that Parliamentary criticism and action against the board should take place and it should be reduced to a minimum.
—which is much to be desired, for Parliament is not good at these things, and it can be positively mischievous.
Who said that? It was the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South in his book on the control of public bodies.
These are the views of the right hon. Gentleman—heaven knows thoroughly borne out by the squalid discussion which has gone on here, on a subject which this House specifically did its utmost to withdraw from its own purview by setting up this Authority and passing the statutes covering and protecting this and other boards. Up to now, those safeguards have been respected by both sides of the House. It is a very bad precedent that is now being established.
The only positive criticism that is brought forward by the Opposition is that

there is not enough competition. Their remedy is that there should be less. Our remedy is that there should be more. That is the difference between us. If they are willing to say, "Let there be more competition," very well. If they say, "Let there be more wavelengths" we agree. If they say, "Let more people come in," we say, "Of course." But that is not what they propose tonight. They are saying, "Back to monopoly. Screw down even the beginnings of independence."
I am not surprised that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, after his trial run upstairs, is very angry about the suggestion of independence. It brings him right out of his corner. That is not our view, nor the view of the country. But all the arguments which hon. Members opposite were bringing forward were arguments for the suppression of competition in every possible way.
Even in the argument they brought forward about increased expenditure, what a standard they set. Artistes would be paid more if there were no monopoly. That puts the B.B.C. employer in a completely strong position. No other employer can offer himself. Let hon. Members opposite teach that to the trade unions and see how they like it.
The argument brought forward is only justified on the ground that the fees for the artistes, on which they live, are paid by other bodies. It is on the theatre fees, on the Press fees, that the artistes who make television and broadcasting possible exist. The rates of the B.B.C. are not sufficient to bring forward and maintain talent of the nature desired in this country.
It is specifically and admittedly because of the greater publicity which the B.B.C. can give that people are ready and willing to take these lower returns. This is sweated labour. I never expected the Opposition to turn out in the whole of its strength to defend a monopoly employer able to pay minimum rates because there was no one else who could afford the facilities for these people to make a living. This extraordinary confusion of thought spreads all through the whole of their arguments.

Dr. H. Morgan: The right hon. Member means his own remarks.

Mr. Elliot: Let the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) contain himself. He knows as well as I do that our Glasgow member of the I.T.A., Tom Honeyman, is capable of standing up for himself, on this issue or any other issue.
The argument brought forward by the eminent signatories to the letter in "The Times" today is itself self-contradictory. They say:
would it not be better to make sure that active political partisans of all parties are excluded from key points in this vitally important new organisation?
That is the end paragraph, but the opening sentence said:
May we express the hope … that … some method may be discovered by requiring the Independent Television Authority to reconsider its recent selection of programme contractors?
There is no greater authority on our Constitution in the world than Lord Waverley. He knows as well as anyone that the only persons who could require such a thing to be done are the Government. If he thinks that the Postmaster-General is not an active political partisan he must live in a very queer world.
The debate is to be wound up by a former Postmaster-General. If the House as a whole thinks that the Lord Privy Seal has never been an active political partisan I doubt if it has listened to some of his more powerful remarks. I think he will be able to disabuse hon. Members of that impression tonight. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was of the same opinion, for he said, in the same book that I mentioned before:
I am more content that the B.B.C. should be directed by Sir John Reith than that it should be directed by that rather slick politician Sir Kingsley Wood the present Postmaster-General even though he be theoretically answerable to the House of Commons.
The Opposition has brought forward a Motion totally below the level of what a Motion of censure ought to be, a Motion of censure directed, as we have heard tonight, very largely on personal issues and against one particular person, a Motion of censure directed to the possibility of wrongful action by an independent authority which has not yet done any of the things of which the Opposition complains, a Motion of censure brought forward because the safeguards

which this House provided are not considered by the Opposition to have been exerted, although the occasion for their use has not yet arisen.
This is shadow boxing with a spectre and is typical of the straits to which the Opposition has been reduced in looking for one issue at least on which it can go into the Lobby without finding its Members dividing three ways on any given issue. We shall be interested indeed to see whether it can get all its hon. and right hon. Members solidly into the same Lobby tonight.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) has succeeded, as always, in doing what he set for his objective, which was to "bracket the target"—I understand that he has used that analogy on a number of occasions. The trouble is that he does not know what is the target.
Let me tell him that the target is, in particular, the Assistant Postmaster-General and the way in which the Government and the hon. Gentleman in particular are responsible for the astonishing confusion and disturbance which has arisen among people of all parties—including some hon. Gentlemen opposite—with regard to the appointment of programme contractors. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] Let the hon. Gentlemen wait, I will deal with some of these points.
Let us take this technical argument as to whether Parliament should interest itself in a public authority. It really is absurd that the Assistant Postmaster-General or the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove should use a quotation from the book written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) as a reason for Parliament not examining the workings of a public authority. Indeed, it is expressly laid down—and that is contained in the book, although I do not propose to quote from it—that Parliament should examine——

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Every five years.

Mr. Shackleton: No. The hon. Member has not read the book.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have read it.

Mr. Shackleton: Then the hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that my right hon. Friend is talking about a general public inquiry over five years and not the function of Parliament in examining the working of a public authority.
The question is whether this public authority, and the workings of it are fit, or indeed necessary, for consideration. I would suggest that there is every reason why we should examine them. I wish to ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will answer some of the questions which were dodged by the Assistant Postmaster-General In particular I would ask him what criteria were employed by the I.T.A.—the Assistant Postmaster-General did not tell us—in selecting suitable programme contractors. I am only asking about finance.
I understand—it is generally know, in fact—that the I.T.A. specified a figure of £3 million as an essential qualification to become a programme contractor. Is that one of the criteria? We know that at least some of the contractors had not £3 mil/ion. Mr. Maurice Winnick had not £3 million and has had to go round searching for it in various quarters. We have seen appeals in the "Financial Times" from A.B.D.C. inviting people to subscribe, presumably to transfer some of the load from the guaranteed fund. Yet it is obvious that that criterion is fairly certain, and I should like to know of others.
I understand that there was a questionnaire, a sort of examination paper and it was a matter of luck whether people gave the right answer or not. The only difference was that it was not followed up by a viva at which the aspiring candidates were asked whether they approved of foxhunting or some other irrelevant matter. Indeed, the questionnaire was one of the silliest things which has been drawn up. I wish to know how far the questionnaire and the answers given were a factor in deciding who should have the contracts.
There is another question to which would particularly like the answer. Had the I.T.A. power to take into consideration the political beliefs or nature of the various programme contractors whom it was considering? I should like to know whether it did so because the Assistant Postmaster-General said, in agreement with my right hon. Friend, that the

I.T.A. made a special effort to try to persuade newspapers belonging to other than Tory persuasion—Labour papers and Liberal papers—to become programme contractors. If that be so, it suggests that the I.T.A. was in fact taking political attitudes into consideration. I should like to know if the I.T.A. did that, if it had the power to do that. Whether it is a good thing or not is another matter, but it is an extremely important matter in the context of our discussion tonight.
It is obvious—and I do not blame him for it—that the Assistant Postmaster-General has not read right through the Report of the Press Commission. If he had, he would not have dismissed as easily as he did the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South with regard to local monopolies.
Might I have the attention of either of the Ministers, including the one who is going to wind up the debate? We all know that the Leader of the House combines great skill with great discourtesy on occasions. I hope he will answer these questions, because they are substantial and are the questions being asked by people other than members of the Labour Party.
I particularly want to know whether the Government regard it as a good thing that the newspapers should extend their activities, especially where there is a large measure of local monopoly. We find that Kemsley newspapers have a large measure of local monopoly—indeed, a degree that might well be eligible to come before the Monopolies Commission. Is it desirable that it should extend that further in the areas where already it has the greatest measure of influence, for instance, in the north of England?
There are one or two other points to which I should like to refer. In particular, I should like to refer to the suitability of certain individuals for appointment as programme contractors. When I refer to Mr. Stanley, let me say that I have never met the gentleman, nor am I making any personal imputation against him.
Again I think the Minister should answer this point, because it has been widely canvassed in the Press. I should like to know whether Mr. Stanley is a director of A.B.D.C.—one of the programme contractors—and is still a director of Arks Publicity Limited, which is an advertising agency. We know that


he was a director for quite a long while. It is difficult to find out if he still is. If he is a director, or has any substantial interests, he is quite clearly a disqualified person under the terms of the Act.

Mr. Elliot: Of course he disposed of the whole of his holdings and gave up the directorship before the Act was through this House.

Mr. Shackleton: In what?

Mr. Elliot: In Arks. And if the hon. Gentleman had gone to the trouble of asking him he could have found out.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Shackleton: There is nothing I have to withdraw. I asked the right hon. Gentleman—if hon. Gentlemen would get a little less excited they would have seen this was widely canvassed in the Press. It has not been denied, and I merely ask for information. I have found out. [Interruption.] I assure hon. Members I was making no personal imputation. Why it should be regarded as disreputable to be a director of an advertising agency I do not know. I merely asked a question about the workings of this Act.
Some hon. Members opposite want to speak, and it would be better if I could proceed. There are some other matters to which I wish to refer, and I would like to know what the interests are of some of the individuals who have become programme contractors. There are a number whose interests have been a great deal more concealed and a great deal less open and above board than Mr. Stanley's. I should like to know if the Government or the I.T.A. can specifically say if this vast conglomeration of financial interests and investment trusts had any relation, in particular, to other programme contractors and whether, in fact, advertising interests are concerned.
I should like to know how the Government regard the relationship—if it is true and the Assistant Postmaster-General was not very certain—of Mr. Wolfson to one of the programme contractors. If there is a relationship, that seems to raise fairly serious issues as to whether he is a suitable person and whether his interests are likely to be prejudicial, because there are other people in the

same line of business who may wish to advertise and may find themselves, or think they may find themselves, at a disadvantage with regard to the particular programme contracting firm.
There were other points which I had intended to make, but I cannot now make them because of the delay caused by the recent discussion about Mr. Stanley. I would merely say that a deplorable and even indecent scramble is taking place. It was quite unnecessary to go ahead with the Act as fast as has been done. I am sure the Authority has been prodded by the Government to get on with the job. It would have been much better if the Authority had taken time to find out who was in the field and had not merely awarded programme contracts to the first comers.
The tragedy of it is that in the end viewers will not get what they want, which is a balanced alternative programme. Hon. Members opposite who are eager to interrupt do not know what a balanced alternative programme is. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite do, and they are keeping quiet. We need a balanced alternative programme, and the Government should look at the matter again and be prepared to introduce legislation, as some future Government, whether Conservative or Labour, will undoubtedly have to do, to regularise an impossible situation.

8.57 p.m.

Sir Beverley Baxter: I intervene only for a minute or two; we all want to hear the Leader of the House on a subject which is so close to his heart.
I am sorry that the coalition between myself and the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) on the first night this subject was raised in the House has now come to an end. He and I started in agreement. I took the view that the Government were mad to take up this subject, and I am not entirely satisfied that I was wrong. The unity of spirit between the right hon. Gentle. man and myself was, however, of a different nature. Our idea was that too much television would destroy much of the finer things of life and that we would become more and more a race of twiddlers, a race of viewers, a race taking all forms of expression from somebody else's brain. Therefore, I was prepared


to follow the right hon. Gentleman, not quite into the Lobby but into no-man's-land.
Tonight I was shocked by his speech. It was unfair, which is very unusual for the right hon. Gentleman. It was singularly ill-informed. I thought he made his points out of petulance, caused perhaps by private troubles upstairs. I want to detain him only a moment more, and then I will leave him to his dreams or sleep, whichever may come first.
The right hon. Gentleman drew a terrifying picture of powerful newspaper proprietors cornering the air like some gods on Olympus. He referred to terrific interference, spreading the kingdom into the clouds, not only governing what we see and read with our eyes, but also taking our ears. He then said that only two newspaper organisations had taken programmes. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. I have never seen a jockey try to ride two horses going in different directions. That would be difficult—[Interruption.] I think we must keep the horses out of this. When making this charge of conspiracy, the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider that Lord Beaverbrook did not apply, and it is very significant if he did not, and Lord Rothermere did not apply. In fact, the Authority had to go out and beg the newspaper proprietors to come in, so that does away with the idea of conspiracy.
There was nothing to stop that very highly capitalistic combine Odhams Press taking sides on television. I think that they were perhaps embarrassed, because this highly capitalistic combine publishes the "Daily Herald," and it is a little awkward when one's mind is in one camp and one's soul in another. When the Socialist Party was opposing this Bill, no doubt Odhams suffered from split mind and decided not to apply.
There was one other point made by the right hon. Gentleman. He should remember that I was with him in his dislike of the whole business, but, in his attack, he picked out the one thing that is commendable. Look at the competition for artists; look at the competition for talent. That is the best thing, and about the only thing, that justifies this scheme.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if, on the line of his argument, he is a great believer in working

men applying, responsibly or irresponsibly, for increases of wages and resorting to unofficial strikes to get what they want?

Sir B. Baxter: The right hon. Gentleman knows my personal philosophy about wages, and this is the great cleavage between his side of the House and mine. I believe in good pay for good work, in better pay for better work, and in outstanding rewards for outstanding achievements. Therefore, I think that is the big cleavage between the party opposite and ourselves. This competition for talent is the best thing in this scheme and the best thing in commercial television. I still think that it is a great pity that we have to some extent, and to an increasing extent, lost the art of reading books and of our children learning to play the piano—all those things which feed the mind because the mind would make the effort. I think it is too bad, and I therefore hope that commercial television will be a failure.

Dr. Morgan: Too conservative.

Sir B. Baxter: I think we are losing something very precious in our lives when the music of Chopin, the works of the poets or the great plays of the past are brought to us for commercial reasons when the real purpose is to advertise what these people want to sell. I have seen it in Canada and America, and I wish we had never taken up this business. I am still sorry that my colleague and good friend across the way made such an awful mess of his attack upon this scheme, because it will enable me with dragging feet to go into the Lobby with my hon. Friends.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: On this side of the House we are very sorry that we have lost the support of the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter). His reasons for changing are more in the nature of animadversions than of serious criticisms.
I do not want to take up too much time because of the shortness of the debate, but I am concerned about the public attitude of hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches and of the Government particularly, and about the whole way in which contracts have been allocated and the whole scheme brought into being. These fall far short of what we have


come to expect of British standards in public life.
A Television Advisory Committee was set up, with the express purpose of finding whether appropriate wavelengths for commercial television and for the B.B.C. services could be found. Recommendations were made by the committee. The Majority Report was to the effect that two channels should be cleared. What did the Government do? They accepted the Minority Report, which proposed that the whole of Band III should be cleared to make it available for commercial television. What has that meant? It has brought the Government into serious legal difficulty and is one of the reasons why we have to have this debate to make the Assistant Postmaster-General and his noble Friend honest men. It has involved great expense to local authorities in having to change the wavelengths of their municipal services, and it probably means an alteration of air navigation instruments.
Who was responsible for these changes? It was none other than our friend Mr. Stanley, who has been mentioned already. I do not want to weary the House with a quotation from the "Wireless World" which condemned the appointment of Mr. Stanley and of Mr. Darnley Smith to the Television Advisory Committee. It is very important to consider whether these appointments should have taken place, having regard to the fact that Mr. Smith is a director of Pye. It would be interesting to know whether Messrs. Pye have any money in the Associated Broadcasting Development Corporation. As a result of the recommendations of the Television Advisory Committee, not only have the wavelengths been made available, but the firm of Pye Radio have benefited by them because they make a large proportion of the sets, which will have to be altered or renewed.
The matter has gone even further. In a report which is not available in the Vote Office but which has to be got as a non-parliamentary paper, there is a recommendation for clearing the whole of Band II. We say on this side of the House that that is entirely wrong.
There is more to come. Mr. Stanley was a director of the Associated Broadcasting Development Corporation. He

resigned at practically the same time as the report was made available to hon. Members. Mr. Collins is associated with the A.B.D.C. We want an answer to a question on this point. Has a cable already been laid for the purpose of commercial television from the A.B.D.C. studios to, I believe, the Museum Telephone Exchange, for the specific purpose of commercial television? We are entitled to know the answer. This is very important because, if it has taken place, it means that the- Assistant Postmaster-General has got off the mark before the gun. It is all part of the mad rush.
My condemnation of this commercial television arrangement is that it is not in conformity with British standards of public life. The way in which the wavelengths have been made available, as the result of the presence of Mr. Stanley on the Advisory Committee, and the' past association of Mr. Stanley with A.B.D.C. and the fact that Mr. Collins is now on one of the production companies, seem entirely wrong.
I made an almost identical speech when the second White Paper was before the House, when I pressed the then Home Secretary on this question. I am particularly concerned about clean Government in this country, and we ought to watch this matter very carefully indeed. I do not wish to go over the ground already covered with regard to the monopoly of the Press, but who was the person who decided that it was necessary to have a capital of £3 million in order to become a production company? On what basis was that sum decided, because such a figure automatically rules out the small person? How can it be really competitive television when a capital sum of £3 million is demanded? In point of fact, it is only the large monopolies who can take advantage of that. We are entitled to know the basis on which that sum was arrived at.
I come now to another question. There is nothing to prevent the production companies from changing hands, or the contract held by one person passing within six or 12 months' time into the hands of an entirely different set of individuals. I suggest that that is a weakness in the Act, and I think that, in the terms of the Motion, that is a point which the Lord Privy Seal might tell us that he is prepared to look into.
The whole thing is wrong. As was pointed out by Mr. Randolph Churchill in an article in "Truth," there is nothing to prevent the ownership of programme companies passing into the hands of one person. There is nothing in the Act to prevent members of the I.T.A. owning and controlling the production companies. I should like to know whether that could happen, and I hope that we shall be given some information on the point.
Only one ray of hope has been given tonight, and that is that the contracts have not yet been signed. I hope that they will not be signed, and that there will be a complete review of the acceptance of the contracts and of the wavelengths which have been made available. To me, the whole business savours of American log-rolling. But for the 1951 election, we should never have heard of the Bill. It is something which, on reflection, I am sure that Members of the Government will regret having introduced.
Finally, in answer to the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter), I would say that the probable reason why Lord Beaverbrook and Odhams were not interested An the contracts was that they believe that in its present form the I.T.A. cannot work.

9.14 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: One thing in this debate has struck me very forcibly, and that is that permeating every speech from the benches apposite is the personal suspicion of somebody. All I can think is that it reflects the prevailing suspicion of hon. Members opposite among themselves.
Let us recognise this debate and this Motion for what they are. They are merely a last-ditch effort to frustrate, delay or prevent the breaking of the B.B.C. monopoly. The whole thing is true to 'the pattern which we have seen throughout these controversies. The Socialist Party put down a Motion. In "The Times" this morning there appears the pontifical leading article which was quoted by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). At the top of the correspondence column there appears the usual letter, couched in rather different terms, from the five signatories who launched the National Television

Council. The whole thing has been repeated ad nauseam ever since this campaign started, and we are merely having it again tonight. It is not exactly a frontal assault this time, but a sort of lateral skirmish, because the party opposite, and the highminded, and the "Daily Mirror," are all mucking in together to attack the I.T.A.
As far as the "Daily Mirror" is concerned, having missed the bus, it is trying to smear the Authority. I think that we can dismiss that with the contempt it deserves, because it has been quite clearly pointed out that the "Daily Mirror," having, shall I say, more than toyed with the idea of becoming a programme company, quite definitely decided not to do so and is now merely endeavouring to smear the Authority because it has not got a contract.
I want to refer to one sentence in the letter in "The Times" this morning from the five signatories who have been mentioned. It reads:
Television is too vital a force for good or evil to be sold in the market place.
That is one of those, I would not call it a catch phrase, perhaps, emanating from such a source, but one of those phrases which are intended to capture the imagination of people who do not think too deeply. What does it mean? It simply means that television is not to be consumer choice, but is to be what is given by people who know better. That is the very essence of their case. If we want a totalitarian State that is what we have; and if we want freedom we have freedom particularly in the medium of expression.

Dr. Morgan: Tory policy.

Sir R. Grimston: It has proved to be exceedingly difficult to break this B.B.C. monopoly, so entrenched has it become. We have had 80 hours of debate in this House and 40 hours of debate in another place. This is merely another attempt to repeat the process, but this time to switch the attack on to the Independent Authority. That is all there is in it.
Who, as a matter of fact, can accuse the Independent Authority of having a pro-Tory or pro-Conservative bias? I think that the best quotation I can give —and no one can seriously maintain that the I.T.A. is under Conservative domination—is what was said in the "Star":
These highly respected men and women"—


said the Left-wing "Star" on 4th August—
are just 'the sort of people who become B.B.C. governors.
At this moment the I.T.A. has an extremely difficult task. That task will be much less difficult when there are more channels. I hope very much that the Government will make more channels available, so that the choice of programme contractors will not be completely limited by the channels there are at present.
I think that what comes out of this is that the sooner the I.T.A. is on the air the better. The public, as was evidenced at the recent exhibition, are keenly anxious to see this new departure in commercial television. Of this I am quite certain; the public do not want to be everlastingly rationed to the B.B.C., which is what the opposition to this Bill wants. I hope that every step will be taken to get these programmes on the air as soon as possible and let the public be the final arbiter. That is what the party opposite are afraid of.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. George Darling (Sheffield, Hills-borough): The hon. Member for West-bury (Sir R. Grimston) has said that this is a last-ditch stand on our part to prevent the breaking up of the B.B.C. He has said that sort of thing before.

Sir R. Grimston: No. I said to break the B.B.C. monopoly, not the breaking up of the B.B.C.—a very different thing.

Mr. Darling: I am sorry that I misquoted the hon. Member, but I think I mean the same thing. I should have said the breaking up of the B.B.C. monopoly, but I have had occasion to correct the hon. Member before. Many Members on this side of the House were advocating the breaking up of the B.B.C. monopoly before the hon. Member came on the scene, and many of us still stand by that point of view.
The hon. Gentleman says that it is difficult to break up the B.B.C. monopoly. The reason it is difficult is that this is such a cock-eyed scheme. There are far better ways of doing it, and if I had the time, I could give a few ideas about that. The hon. Member for South-gate (Sir B. Baxter) was against this setup right from the beginning until the newspapers became involved in the

controversy, and I certainly hope—and I say this in a friendly fashion—that the hon. Gentleman is not going to follow the line of the brewers and say, "My trade; my politics."

Sir B. Baxter: I think that the hon. Gentleman is most insulting. I have said tonight that I think that the Government are mad, but for him to think that I should make the speech which I did in the House tonight because I was some newspaper proprietor's employee is insulting. I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw it.

Mr. Darling: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he took my expression of opinion in the wrong way.
What I meant was that if any of us who have interests in this—I have Co-operative interests—were influenced in our views because of our associations, instead of taking the viewers' interest as being of paramount importance, we should get involved in all kinds of things which we should like to avoid. I applauded the views of the hon. Gentle, man at the end of his speech. I think that if he could forget the expression of opinion which he disliked, and which I did not mean in the fashion in which he took it, and if he and I got together, we could evolve a scheme for breaking up the B.B.C. monopoly which would satisfy the views of the majority of the Members of the House.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) has left the Chamber, because he gave another exhibition of his appalling ignorance of this Act and what is behind it. He told us, for instance, that the I.T.A. is in line with the boards of the nationalised industries. Of course, it is not. The I.T.A. is handing out exclusive contracts to private profit-making firms, and it is essential, in these circumstances, that we lay down a strict code of conduct for the behaviour of the I.T.A. and everyone else associated with this business. I regret that we had to raise the case of Miss Dilys Powell—but we must point out that there cannot be any kind of nepotism in this set-up. We have to have strict codes of conduct, and I will leave that point there.
With regard to one remark made by the Assistant Postmaster-General, I wish


he would find out just what is going on in this business. He said that the Co-operative movement could apply for a licence to run a programme contracting company. The Co-operative movement is barred from doing so under the Act because lit does its own advertising and does not employ an advertising agent. That is the end of the Co-operative movement in this business. The Assistant Postmaster-Genera] also said that it was wrong of us to raise this issue at this time because the I.T.A. has only been working for four months. We want to raise it now before we get in a far worse mess than we are in at the moment. As we see it, the I.T.A. has been launched in rather difficult seas, without proper charts to guide its course, and with a craw which has had no training an navigation. There are rocks and reefs ahead, and we want to see that the I.T.A. floats off, as it were, in a proper course with proper charts. Otherwise, the enterprise is in great danger of being sunk in a way that we do not wish it to be.
A great many mistakes are being made by the Government and the I.T.A. We expected these mistakes. We expected this trouble because the Act, as we said at the time, leaves far too much to the I.T.A. The Authority does not start off with clear directions as to the terms and conditions which it should impose in the selection of programme contractors. Whenever we tried to make the Bill more specific in those and other matters, we were told by the present Lord Chancellor and the Assistant Postmaster-General that we ought not to lay down rigid rules but should trust the I.T.A. and "leave it to the I.T.A." That is all right so long as the I.T.A. has clear guidance in this very difficult field.
We are not setting up another nationalised industry for which we can lay down the whole procedure quite clearly in specific terms, in discussion in this House and in the rules and regulations under the Act. We are giving to a semi-public body the task of picking and choosing programme contractors that will operate, and we are preventing—eliminating—other programme contractors from coming in because they do not satisfy the Authority.
In those circumstances, surely the rules and regulations that we lay down for that

selection must be clear and specific. They must have the approval of this House and of the people. But there are no guiding rules, and that is why we are in this trouble and having this discussion and controversy about whether newspapers should be in.
The Assistant Postmaster-General said that the Government have put no pressure whatever upon the I.T.A. in regard to anything. I am afraid that there is evidence that rather suggests that that statement is not quite correct. When Sir Kenneth Clark was first appointed to be Chairman of the Authority, a "News-Chronicle" reporter telephoned him, and the "News-Chronicle" next day carried a report of that telephone conversation, in the course of which Sir Kenneth said:
I can tell you that we are going to provide an alternative and not a competitive service with the B.B.C.
He went on to explain why there ought to be an alternative and not a competitive service. That was a common sense approach, as we on this side of the House had all been saying throughout the two years of discussion on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Oh, yes. Competition, yes—competition for staff, for scripts and writers, for artistes and entertainers, but competition to produce alternative programmes for the benefit of the viewers. That is what Sir Kenneth Clark wanted. But next day, when Sir Kenneth appeared before a Press conference, after meeting the Postmaster-General and getting his views about all this, he had to announce that the B.B.C. and he would not work together and would not provide alternative programmes. It was quite clear that he took that line as the result of the conversations with the Postmaster-General.
Then we come to the Assistant Postmaster-General's statement on Second Reading, which is quoted in "The Times" today. I am sorry that "The Times" has quoted it, because I had looked this up and had it in my notes long before today. I shall not give the quotation again. The hon. Gentleman said that there would be plenty of programme contractors, more than were really needed. That was the whole basis of the argument for the Act and for the setting up of the I.T.A.—that there would be plenty of competition and free


enterprise, and nobody need bother about little monopolies growing up here and there.
I am confident that many hon. Members opposite went tramping through the Lobbies in favour of the various views which had been expressed on the Government side of the House, and of the Clauses in the Bill, because they really believed what the Assistant Postmaster-General was telling them. But it was a misleading statement. It is well to point out that that view was not corrected at any time during the passage of the Bill; not even on the last day of the Committee stage, when the hon. Member for Westbury moved an Amendment which said, in effect, that although the Government had been talking about competition for a long time, they really did not mean it, and that instead of competition the Government would allow programme companies to have monopolies at the regional stations.
Although the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Government resisted that Amendment, it was only at that stage, the very last day in Committee, that the Government gave an indication that this monopoly situation, of programme contractors having regional monopolies, was in their minds. Even at that stage the Assistant Postmaster-General made no attempt at all to correct his previous statement, upon which all the arguments for the Bill had been based. That was the final sell-out. There were not dozens of programme contractors coming in to provide straightforward competition, but just two or three, including newspaper influences.
How is it that the I.T.A. has got itself into this mess? I have stated one reason, and why we are not to have proper competition side by side as we were promised. The Act is not clear and specific in the obligations laid upon the I.T.A. It seems to me that at the back of all of this there is a fundamental mistake which we all made during the discussions on this Bill.
I remember during the Committee stage trying to put what I thought was a sensible point of view, and the Assistant Postmaster-General asked me for whom I was speaking. When I ventured to say that I was speaking for the viewers—the viewers had not been mentioned during

the course of the Bill—the Assistant Postmaster-General said, "We have other interests to consider." How well they are being considered now.
We do not like this Act because it puts commercial interests before the public and the viewers' interests. I agree that there should be competition in radio and television. We have been pleading for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes, and there is no point now in suggesting that what we are seeking to do at this stage is to defend the B.B.C. monopoly, because that decision has been taken and is settled.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Did the hon. Member vote for it?

Mr. Darling: I did not vote for it because I have a far better scheme.

Mr. Osborne: Where is the evidence of it?

Mr. Darling: I will come to it in a moment.
Surely in all these discussions we ought to take the viewers' interests into consideration. Surely if we have to accept the Act we should see to it that the companies which are licensed as programme contractors are those companies which are most likely to give the best service without any commercial interests and without any bias on political considerations. Their idea ought to be to give entertainment and information which go to make good programmes.
Here I come to the political aspect. I think it was quite wrong for the I.T.A., when it had only two and later on three newspaper groups all on the Right applying to be programme contractors, to go round touting among newspapers of the Left to come in and join the merry throng. Surely that is not the way to set up a public service of this kind, and in any case we cannot balance the conflicting interests in that way.
The "Daily Mail" group will operate in London. I do not believe that the leopard will change its spots, and there will be political stunts in its programmes. I hope I am wrong, but even supposing it does happen, we cannot correct the balance by putting on a "Daily Herald" programme in Glasgow. That cannot be a correction of the balance, as things are in the set-up which we have. It has to be remembered that, in the original set-up, there were to be a number of programme


contractors above suspicion of political bias who were to have the straightforward job of serving the public with the entertainment programmes that the public wanted.
I accept the view that a large amount of capital is needed to start a programme company, but I do not believe that £3 million is needed to cover its operations until it begins to break even. It is wrong that that arbitrary figure should be laid down which cuts out many companies that might otherwise have come in, and results in a regional monopoly entering into what should be a competitive organisation. The selection of programme contractors must be taken into consideration, because we have departed from the normal concept of free enterprise and free competition: we think it is wrong that if there is any money to be made, it should be made only by companies which have been selected by the Authority. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) asked what we would do. As I have said, we want competition within a public service. We hope that opportunities will arise whereby we can transform the I.T.A. into a real public service. However, whatever may be the policy which we shall advocate when we sit on the benches opposite, what we are concerned with now is what is to be done by this Government.
In the two minutes left to me I suggest that there is an easy way out of the difficulty over the I.T.A. We shall need regional companies or regional authorities of some kind. Why not make the regional companies or authorities public service corporations, to operate and produce television programmes in the regions, financed to begin with by a Government loan to provide equipment, with revenue coming in partly from licence fees and partly from advertising? I would hope that such advertising would take different forms—advertising films, trade announcements, marketing information and so on. A high proportion of the programmes could be provided by the programme contractors, which would allow not just one or two selected companies to operate, but would bring in a much larger number of companies, giving real and adequate competition.
I venture to suggest to the House that we cannot have in the present set-up the

competition that was promised in the Act, and the competition which everybody wants, because of the conditions that are being laid down in regard to programme contractors. We can, however, get competition of the right kind if we make the Authority which governs the programmes a public service authority, one in each region, with the programmes in large measure, but not entirely, supplied by programme contractors competing to do the job.
Is that not real competition? Would that not bring in the small men who are now being kept out? Would that not serve the purposes which we all want—a proper measure of public service and a proper measure of private enterprise and competition? I suggest that this is the view the party opposite should take; whether it will do so remains to be seen.
I warn the Government that if they allow the position to go on as it is, this will not be the last occasion on which we shall have to criticise the I.T.A. and its activities in this House. This will not be the last occasion when we shall have to criticise the arrangements made with the programme contractors. I hope that to avoid all that the Government will announce tonight that they are going to take steps—they do not need new legislation to do it—to put this matter on a better basis and get the mixture of public service and private enterprise which is so urgently needed.

9.40 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I think that that speech by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) was the most peculiar winding-up speech for a Motion of censure that I have ever heard. I have taken part in debates on Motions of censure from the benches opposite attacking and from these benches defending, but I have never heard a speech winding up a debate of that kind that seemed to be a Second Reading speech on a Bill which the hon. Member hopes to see introduced at some time in the future. The speech was also very different in its content from the Second Reading speeches made on the Act itself by hon. Members opposite.
It passes my comprehension how this can be a Motion of censure on the Government. There are only two Front Bench names attached to the Motion and


the debate was not wound up by a Front Bench spokesman opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "What of it?"] That is the common form on a Motion of censure, the common Parliamentary practice which the Labour Party is always very rightly proud to fulfil.
Let us look at the Motion itself. The House is asked to express its alarm, the House in this context being of course hon. and right hon. Members opposite. [Interruption.] Everybody has been very good so far in not interrupting and we have had a very short debate. I hope that I shall be allowed to say what I want to say, more or less. As I was saying, in this context the Opposition expresses its alarm at the manner in which the Television Act is operating. What rubbish, because if they were dissatisfied with the way in which it was working they would only be too pleased to tell us. Not "alarmed" at all but "delighted" is the word.
What action has been taken to date? How is the Act operating? After all, it is not quite four months to the actual day since the Royal Assent was given. What action has taken place in between which has been viewed with such alarm? The first thing which had to happen was that my noble Friend the Postmaster-General had to appoint members of the Authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Alarming."] The "Star" has been quoted as saying that they were estimable people, just the kind of folk who would be on the B.B.C. itself. Anyhow, we on this side of the House have every confidence in the judgment of my noble Friend in the selection which he made.
Then the Authority started to get its staff together—not very alarming. It appointed particularly a director-general. There was slight alarm from the Right when that happened, but nothing from the Left at all. They probably patted themselves on the back in the dark and thought that it was all to the good. Then the Authority started to advertise and to select programme contractors. That is no so very alarming. No contracts have been signed yet. On that subject I should like to take up a small point which was put to me by the hon. Member for Northfields (Mr. Chapman) about how dangerous it would be if contracts could be assigned and therefore the programme

contractors become monopolists. I am advised that it is intended to make it a clause in the contract that it cannot be assigned. Therefore that fear can be brushed away.
I now resume my account of the alarming action taken. We have had the appointment of the Authority and its staff and the discussions going on with the possible programme contractors. I understand that transmitters have been ordered, links between the television stations have had to be arranged with the Post Office and agreement reached with the B.B.C. for the sharing of masts. I do not say that that is not a very considerable achievement in four months, but certainly there is nothing alarming about it.
I shall come back to the points made in the debate, but what I have said disposes of the first part of the Motion, the
alarm at the manner in which the Television Act is operating.
I put to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that what I have told them has in fact happened in the last few months and there is really not anything at all for them to get into a panic about. The second part of the Motion
requests Her Majesty's Government to bring forward legislation to amend or repeal the Act.
That is the strangest proposition in a Motion of censure which I believe could be made. Which do night hon. and hon. Members opposite mean, amend, or repeal? They obviously cannot have both at the same time. If they mean repeal I can understand their position, and I can understand why the hon. Member for Hillsborough gave us a glimpse of the Second Reading speech he will make on the Bill, which is to take its place when the Labour Government come in. But, if they mean amend, that is something quite different because that means the acceptance of the principle of the Act.
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot call upon us to repeal and at the same time say that we should amend the Act. One either ends it or does not end it. Therefore, once again, this vote of censure is quite ridiculous. I think a great deal of the trouble which the Labour Party is suffering at the moment is that the right hon. Member for Lewis-ham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was so


quick off the mark in saying that his party was going to have done with all this before they knew what was going to happen. They have that pledge round their necks, that they are going to do away with all this, although I have no doubt that in fact they will change their tune when they see what happens. At the moment this is all hypothetical, but I am sure that there are hon. Members opposite who do not want the Act repealed. They hope that sometime they may have some say in the matters with which these programme companies will be concerned and, possibly, even take part in some of the performances and programmes themselves.
We have to remember that one of the complaints which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South was making against the whole plan was that, as he said, the programmes Jacked balance, were unplanned and the cost would rise so that it would be very much more expensive for everyone. That argument was completely demolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot). He asked if the deductions were to be made that the competition this was bound to bring would mean an increase in salaries, in wages and in remuneration of the artistes, bands and all the people who may be employed by one or the other organisation because the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. would be in competition. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South says that is terrible as it will raise the cost; it is much better to keep everyone down. "Wage slaves" and all the other things which used to be thrown at us as being our desires and policy now turn out to be what the right hon. Member thinks is a good plan for television.
These propositions are quite irreconcilable. This debate has been largely one of criticising a statutory body, of criticising the way in which it is thought the I.T.A. has entered into discussions with the various programme companies with whom it is now negotiating. It must be a very long time, if ever, since a vote of censure has been devoted to the activities of a statutory body. The whole point of having statutory bodies and not putting such things as the B.B.C. or television under a Minister is in order to have an independent body. The writings of the right hon. Member have been quoted against him already this evening. If he

wants me to do so, I will repeat the quotation. He is:
more content that the B.B.C should be under Sir John Reith than that it should be directed by"—
what he rather rudely called—
that rather slick politician Sir Kingsley Wood, the present Postmaster-General"—
this was in 1933—
although lie be theoretically answerable to the House of Commons.
That is what he said, and it really is his view. Yet here, all this evening, we have had nothing but attacks and complaints about the Independent Television Authority.

Mr. H. Morrison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we get a totally and fundamentally different atmosphere when these undertakings are no longer a public service, but are a matter of commercial exploitation, capitalist enterprise and newspaper influence?

Mr. Crookshank: That was very quick, but it does not alter the argument I was advancing. The long words rolled out from the tip of the right hon. Gentleman's tongue—I think that he must have used that phrase before.
The whole point of these statutory bodies is to remove them from day-today criticism in Parliament. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends keep asking what is this and what is that, what the Independent Television Authority has done, or what is its policy, an answer, broadly speaking, is that it is an independent Authority. It has been taken outside the purview of the Government, of the Postmaster-General, of this House, and I do not know the answers—and I do not want to know, because we have taken the course so often recommended by the right hon. Gentleman, and we cannot have it both ways.
In point of fact, my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, having ascertained the answer to the question which the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Shackleton) asked, did say, about the sort of criteria there were, that, broadly speaking, they are knowledge, skill and resources for providing a balanced programme. Beyond that I am quite unable to go, and I would not wish to probe


further, because I, and I am sure my right hon. Friends, have confidence in the general activities of the Independent Television Authority whom we wish to maintain as independent.
We pass from that to the extraordinary fear which the right hon. Gentleman has all the time about the Press. This debate has been a very strange one. A great deal of it has been a smear campaign. Names have been brought up without notice to the Minister or myself, so that, had there been any basis for the remarks which have been made, we could have found out about them. I accept nothing which has been said in a personal sense against this or that person during this debate. But there has been a considerable smear campaign, and all the time there has been this idea that there is something wrong with the Press.
One might think that these proposed programme companies were to be run by the Press. In one case one group of newspapers has a less than 50 per cent, interest, and in the other about a one-third interest. In no case have they control at all. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Press, through this uncontrolling interest, cannot be trusted to give fair judgment to public taste. If they have not the right judgment of public taste, the public will take action by refusing to look at the programmes. People do not have to look at the programmes if they do not want to.
When the right hon. Gentleman says that, owing to this link-up, the Press will not criticise the programmes I just do not believe it. Because one or two newspaper groups may have a minority interest in the programmes, I do not believe that the whole of the rest of the British Press will never criticise at all. And even if they do not, even if they gave up their right of criticism, it is the great British public which in the end will be the critic.
It looks as though hon. Members opposite think that these programmes are to be Tory Party propaganda. With all due respect, that would be a terribly dull programme—[Interruption.]—but it would only be——

Mr. William Ross: You would not be on all the time.

Mr. Crookshank: —less dull and more truthful than the party propaganda from hon. Members opposite.
There seems to be the idea that, in all this question somehow or other, the news is going to be dominated by one group or other. My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General said the programme contractors would have nothing to do with the news, that is to say, that individual companies would have nothing to do with it at all. What I understand is likely to happen is that there would be a news company, a sort of federation of the four programme companies and all other interests, working on a basis approved by the Authority and with the Authority taking responsibility for its objectivity and impartiality. Therefore, that knocks out the suspicion that a particular programme company can have any undue influence in matters of this kind.
This debate is a backwash of the summer debates. There is no question about it. Just as last night we were dealing with Lords Amendments to two Bills, with which we finished long ago, so this was the same sort of hiccoughing resultant on what occurred in July. We are even down to seeing in "The Times" today the usual letter from what I might call the Five Furies of 40, Pembridge Road, W.11; that is to say, the three noble Lords of whose disinterestedness we all have complete knowledge, Lords Waverley, Halifax and Brand, with Lady Violet Bonham Carter on her broomstick, and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) being benignly in the offing for some unknown purpose.
We have evidence—as good as we can get—for being in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South, because one of these companies is going to be connected with Mr. Sidney Bernstein. I suppose he is a friend of the right hon. Gentleman, because he is a paid-up member of the Labour Party. He said, as reported by the "Yorkshire Post" on 24th October:
One would run a television station in this country as one runs a cinema, … for entertainment and that covers every aspect of potential television; educational, stage plays celebrities and so on.
The report went on:
He could not see how the charge of pro-Conservative bias could fee valid.


That is one of those who are going to be in this field and the one nearest to the heart of the right hon. Gentleman.
The fact of the matter is that the Labour Party sees politics everywhere and in everything. Most people get through life without continuously reflecting on political affairs. I should think about half an hour per annum is the ordinary ration. Therefore, this idea that this new Independent Television Authority is going to be riddled with party politics is merely a fantasy in the imagination of hon. Members opposite.
People want good programmes. How many hon. Members in this House have the slightest idea of the political affiliations of either the owners, or pro-

ducers, or managers of any London theatre. Do they refuse to go to a theatre because they fear the producer or owner or manager may be a Socialist or a Tory? They go for the play, and so it will be with television. People will look at the programmes and if they do not like them, they will turn them off and they are certainly not going to be interested—

Mr. Herbert W. Bowden: Mr. Herbert W. Bowden rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes. 268; Noes, 300.

Division No. 240.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Adams, Richard
Deer, G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Albu, A. H.
Delargy, H. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Dodds, N. N.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Isaacs, RI. Hon. G. A.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Janner, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R,
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jay, Rt. Han. D. P. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Edelman, M.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Baird, J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Balfour, A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)



Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Bartley, P.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fienburgh, W.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Bence, C. R.
Finch, H. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Benson, G.
Follick, M.
Keenan, W.


Beswick, F.
Foot, M. M.
Kenyon, C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Forman, J. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
King, Dr. H. M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lawson, G. M.


Blyton, W. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Boardman, H.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon, H. T. N.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gibson, C. W.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bowles, F. C.
Gooch, E. G.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Lewis, Arthur


Brockway, A. F,
Greenwood, Anthony
Lindgren, G. S.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grey, C. F.
Logan, D. G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacColl, J. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McGhee, H. G.


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McGovern, J.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hale, Leslie
McInnes, J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
McLeavy, F.


Carmichael, J.
Hamilton, W. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hannan, W.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Champion, A. J.
Hardy, E. A.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Chapman, W. D.
Hargreaves, A.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)



Hastings, S,
Mann, Mrs, Jean


Clunie, J.
Hayman, F. H.
Manuel, A. C.


Coldrick, W.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Gollick, P. H.
Hendersen, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mason, Roy


Collins, V. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mayhew, C. P.


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mellish, R. J.


Cove, W. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Messer, Sir F.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holman, P,
Mikardo, Ian


Grossman, R. H. S.
Holmes, Horace
Mitchison, G. R.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Monslow, W.


Daines, P.
Hoy, J. H
Moody, A. S.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morley, R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)




Mort, D. L.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thornton, E.


Moyle, A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Timmons, J.


Mulley, F. W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Turner-Samuels. M


Murray, J. D.
Ross, William
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Nally, W.
Royle, C.
Usborne, H. C.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Viant, S. P.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Wallace, H. W.


Oldfield, W. H.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Oliver, G. H.
Short, E. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Oswald, T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Owen, W. J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Weitzman, D.


Padley, W. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Paget, R. T.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Skeffington, A. M.
West, D. G.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Pannell, Charles
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Parker, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Parkin, B. T.
Snow, J. W.
Wigg, George


Paton, J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Peart, T. F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wilkins, W. A.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Sparks, J. A.
Willey, F. T.


Popplewell, E.
Steele, T.
Williams, David (Neath)


Porter, G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Probert, A. R.
Strauss, RI. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Proctor, W. T.
Stress, Dr. Barnett
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Horton)


Pryde, D. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Rankin, John
Swingler, S. T.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Reeves, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wyatt, W. L.


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Yates, V. F.


Richards, R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)



Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Cary, Sir Robert
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollak)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Channon, H.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Alport, C. J. M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Gammans, L. D.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Glover, D.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Godber, J. B.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cole, Norman
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Gough, C. F. H.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gower, H. R.


Armstrong, C. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Baldwin, A. E.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)




Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Banks, Col. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Barber, Anthony
Crouch, R. F.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harris, Frederic (Graydon, N.)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Davidson, Viscountess
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
De La Bére, Sir Rupert
Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hay, John


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Donner, Sir P. W.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Birch, Nigel
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heath, Edward


Bishop, F. P.
Drayson, G. B.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Black, C. W.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Duthie, W. S.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Han. J. A.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Boyle, Sir Edward
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Wrwk Lmgtn)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Braine, B. R.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hollis, M. C.



Errington, Sir Eric
Hope, Lord John


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Erroll, F. J.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fell, A.
Horsbrugh Rt. Hon. Florence


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Finlay, Graeme
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bullard, D. G.
Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Burdett, F. F. A.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fort, R.
Hurd, A. R.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Foster, John
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Campbell, Sir David
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Carr, Robert
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hyde, Lt-Col, H. M.







Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Jennings, Sir Roland
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Smyth, Brig. J. G (Norwood)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Snadden, W. McN.


Johnson, Howard (Kempton)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Soames, Capt. C.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Neave, Airey
Spearman, A. C. M.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Nicholls, Harmar
Speir, R. M.


Kaberry, D.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Kerr, H. W.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Lambert, Hon. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Lampton, Viscount
Oakshott, H. D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Odey, G. W.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Leather, E. H. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Storey, S.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Osborne, C.
Studholme, H. G.


Lindsay, Martin
Page, R. G.
Summers, G. S.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Partridge, E.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Llewellyn, D. T.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Teeling, W.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Longden, Gilbert
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)
Tilney, John


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Touche, Sir Gordon


McAdden, S. J.
Profumo, J. D.
Turton, R. H.


McCallum, Major D.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Vane, W. M. F.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Ramsden, J. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Rayner, Brig. R.
Vosper, D. F.


McKibbin, A. J.
Redmayne, M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Remnant, Hon. P.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Renton, D. L. M.
Wall, Major Patrick


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Robertson, Sir David
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Robson-Brown, W.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wellwood, W.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Russell, R. S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Marples, A. E.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wills, G.


Maude, Angus
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maudling, R.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wood, Hon. R.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Scott, R. Donald
Woollam, John Victor


Medlicott, Brig, F.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.



Mellor, Sir John
Sharples, Maj. R. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Molson, A. H. E.
Shepherd, William
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and




Sir Cedric Drewe.


Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

In pursuance of section two of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939, Mr. Wade appointed a Managing Trustee of the House of Commons Members' Fund in the room of Mr. Clement Davies, resigned. —[Mr. Kaberry.]

GOVERNMENT COLD STORES

10.13 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Cold Storage (Control of Undertakings) (Revocation) Order, 1954 (S.I., 1954, No. 1312), dated 6th October,

1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th October, be annulled.
This is an interesting study in the attitude of either side of the House on the question of public ownership or private monopoly. It will be interesting tonight to test the attitude of the House on this question.
At the outbreak of the war, the Government decided that it would be necessary to build a large number of cold stores to supplement what the trade already had. While the Battle of Britain was on, negotiations were proceeding between the cold storage industry and Lord Woolton as to what should be the fate of these cold stores after the war. Lord Woolton arrived at an agreement in November 1940, with the cold storage


industry about the future of any cold store that should be built. This is what he agreed: any stores that were built for the Government and on Government account should suffer one of the three following fates. They should be retained on a care-and-maintenance basis as a permanent reserve; or they should be dismantled and the sites sold or disposed of as the Government might decide at the time; or they should be offered to the industry at a price determined by an independent valuation.
That pledge has haunted the Government ever since. During the war the Government built cold storage capacity amounting to about 15 million cubic feet, which is about one-third of the total cold storage capacity of this country. The buildings then put up cost about £7 million, and the cold stores then built, being new, were obviously much more efficient than a number of the cold stores in private hands. Some of them were badly sited from the point of view of peace-time commercial competition, because they were built in areas which were not subject to bombing. Others, however, were sited in areas where at the present time they can compete with private cold stores and can hold their own in any competition that may take place. That, at any rate, is what I would aver.
As a particular illustration, I now come to the case of Cardiff's cold store, which I know best, because it is situated at the edge of King's Wharf in Cardiff and has 32 feet of deep water. It can hold 10,000 tons of refrigerated produce. It has lifts, an apron for loading and discharging, 20 lorries, and road and rail communications have been built. I think it is fair to say that it is the most modern and certainly one of the largest cold stores in the country.
For the last 14 years that cold store has been operated by the Government at a substantial profit. It is very interesting to look for a moment at the question of profitability, because if we examine, as the Public Accounts Committee have examined, the relative profitability of the new Government-owned cold stores and the rather older privately-owned cold stores, the figures work out something like this.
I will quote the figures that were given to the Public Accounts Committee in

1947–48. It cost the Government about £800,000 to operate 15 million cubic feet of cold storage, whereas it cost private industry £3,500,000 to operate 37 million cubic feet. In other words, it cost private enterprise four times as much to operate about twice as much cold storage capacity. The reason, I think, is well known, and has been admitted in evidence.
A number of privately-owned cold stores are inefficient and old and are not necessarily in the best situations. Therefore, it follows that good, new, modern, efficient cold stores, such as the one in Cardiff, and, of course, others elsewhere, can operate at a profit, and on a highly competitive basis with private industry.
To bring the story up to date, the Government are proposing to revoke the order under which cold storage in this country is controlled. Up to the moment, it has been necessary to have a licence in order to control a cold store and another for charges. The revocation of this Order brings into force the pledges given by Lord Woolton during the Battle of Britain. According to those pledges, these efficient Government-owned cold stores are either to be put on a care-and-maintenance basis or dismantled and the site sold, or they may be offered to the industry at a price to be determined by an independent valuation.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Hear, hear.

Mr. Callaghan: I am very interested to hear that the noble Lord agrees that private monopoly should take precedence over the public interest. It is what I would have expected from him, and, of course, it is what is going to happen, because the Government propose to hand over these cold stores—if I understand the Press notice which the Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to send me—to a company jointly operated by the Government and the cold storage industry through the medium of the managing company. The details of this arrangement are now being discussed.
What is to happen is that, in accordance with the pledges given, efficient public property will stand in jeopardy of being closed down in order that inefficient private property may maintain a profit. I notice that the noble Lord does not say "Hear, hear" to this.


Perhaps the full consequences are now coming home to him because, in fact, what will happen is this. The industry, which is basically controlled by a monopoly—by the Union Cold Storage; Vestey's "empire," has a substantial interest in it, as hon. Gentlemen opposite will know very well, and so has Unilever—will be in a position to shut down these Government-owned cold stores because of the pledge given by Lord Woolton. If I am wrong in this the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me, but I think that those facts are correct. He may try to put a different gloss on them but, fundamentally, the facts are correct.
It is wrong that we should agree to the revocation of the Order until we have far more guarantees from the Government as to the line to be pursued by this managing company which is to be set up. The company is to be drawn from the industry and from the Government. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whom he is to appoint as directors on the Government side? Are they to be civil servants? If not, who else are they to be? Secondly, what policy are they to follow? Thirdly, will they have a controlling voice in the management of these cold stores, or is the controlling voice to be that of the industry, through its nominees? Fourthly, are these Government cold stores to be operated commercially or not? That is the whole crux of the question and that is what we are chiefly interested in.
To us it looks as if these Government cold stores are being handed over to a company which will be mainly interested in ensuring that they are used only when the private cold storage accommodation is full. If that is wrong I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will deny it, but I am afraid that it is right. How does the hon. Gentleman think that these Government-owned cold stores can compete with the privately-owned ones if the competitors of the Government stores are sitting on the board of the managing company? It is difficult to resist the conclusion that we are, in fact, handing over the control of the Government-owned cold stores to the industry in the fulfilment of pledges which, in my view, were improperly given, and which set the interest of a few private persons above the public interest irrespective

of the flow from it.
The Parliamentary Secretary represents a Government and a party which, so they say, believe in competition. I must say that I wonder whether they do not, in fact, preach competition and practise monopoly. I am bound to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is really a bad example of the way in which public interest is sacrificed to private enterprise. If, however, he and hon. Members opposite really believe in competition, will they give the Government-owned cold stores—and I single out Cardiff, because I know it best—will they give the Cardiff Government-owned cold stores a chance to show what they can do in competition with a private industry which is, admittedly, not efficient in all its cold stores? We know that there are efficient privately-owned cold stores, but there are inefficient ones also, and the margin of profitability fixed by the Government during the war had to be fixed at a level much higher than was otherwise necessary because of the number of inefficient privately-owned cold stores.
The Parliamentary Secretary really ought to give these publicly-owned cold stores in general—and Cardiff in particular—the opportunity of going into competition with the others. I suggest that, instead of handing all these over to a company on which the industry is to be represented—and I am sure that we shall be given details of the degree of representation—the hon. Gentleman should hand over the Cardiff store to the chief docks manager there. He and his colleagues would like the chance to make a go of it, and I am sure that they would make a go of it, They are interested in trying to get the Australian shippers and shipowners—and the New Zealand shippers and shipowners —to use the store, in order to get it going. It is a matter of great moment. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot expect us to believe much in his philosophy if his idea of private enterprise is to subordinate public assets to private monopoly.
That, broadly, is our case against the revocation of the Order. We think that he is doing it in a way which, if I may say so, slits the throat of the public cold stores, and for that reason I move this Motion.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to second the Motion.
We happen to have a special interest and concern in this question of the cold storage plants. In South Wales we have a particular interest in this question of the maintenance of an efficient publicly-owned cold storage plant. People of all parties and business people in all walks of life have joined together in the City of Cardiff in order to see what can be done to facilitate the trade of the Cardiff docks.
An efficient cold storage plant is a very important part of our plans for attracting trade into that important city and port. We are tonight finding that this cold storage plant is in danger because of a promise made nearly 15 years ago to big business interests, which apparently had to be placated even while we were with our backs to the wall during the war. It is a strange thing that in these palmier days we should find that we are being restricted because of the power of big business interests in the year 1940. I recognise that in public life promises made must be honoured by those who make them, but none the less I think that the changed circumstances which confront us today enable the Government to say that publicly-owned assets shall not be sacrificed to private greed, and that where we see publicly-owned activities, such as these cold storage plants, proved successful they will not wantonly be disregarded.
The Public Accounts Committee has had something to say about these cold storage plants. The present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance had the honour of being the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee when, in 1947–48, it considered the question of cold storage plants. It recommended to the House—I understand unanimously—that special consideration be given in the review of this question to ensuring that the fullest possible use was made of these Government stores which it might be decided to keep in operation. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be kind enough to toll us whether these big concerns will have a voice in deciding whether the cold storage plant at Cardiff is to continue.
Have Unilever's the right to decide whether the Cardiff docks are to lose

this publicly-owned cold storage plant or maintain it? If he will answer that, it will be at least clear in the minds of the people of Cardiff what policy the Government are pursuing. I have little to add because naturally there is a great difference between the other side of the House and this side on public ownership of important spheres of our industry, of which this cold storage plant is a very important part. We had it through the dark days of the war and the difficult days which followed the war, and the Government will be taking a great risk, and a security risk, if they endanger that cold storage plant, as they appear to be doing by this new joint committee which it is proposed to set up.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. David Llewellyn: Normally I and my colleagues for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) are able to see eye to eye on many of the matters that concern Cardiff docks in their present plight, but this evening I think that my colleagues have somewhat over-stressed the issue of private as against public enterprise. It seems to me that there is not only a matter of doctrine involved here but also a matter of honour.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give details of the precise nature of this pledge. I believe it was made originally on 16th January, 1940, by the then Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Food. It was confirmed in November, 1940, after the formation of the Coalition Government. Therefore, it seems a little unfair to try to pin the entire responsibility for this matter on to Lord Woolton. Here I would have thought that the doctrine of fair shares of blame for all ought to apply.
It may well be that this pledge is open to criticism, but I believe it was confirmed by the Coalition Government, and I should like to have confirmation or denial of that point from my hon. Friend. I feel that once that pledge was given, whether rightly or wrongly, it should either be honoured or varied by agreement.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean that in November, 1940, when Lord Woolton was going to lunches


and telling these people that the pledges that had been given by the previous Minister of Food were all right, that the Government, during the height of the Battle of Britain, formally confirmed this pledge? I do not believe it.

Mr. Llewellyn: That is a matter of which we should get confirmation. It is irrelevant whether Lord Woolton was sitting down to lunch or not. If the pledge was given by a Coalition Government, the responsibility for that cannot be pinned on the Conservatives——

Mr. Callaghan: On Lord Woolton.

Mr. Llewellyn: Or on Lord Woolton, because it happens this evening to suit the argument of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. If this pledge was considered so disreputable that it should not have been given, it seems to me odd that throughout the whole period of the Labour Government—the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East can correct me if I am wrong, because he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport—that no action was taken to vary that agreement.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman has not searched the records. If he does, he will find that I was subjected to fierce attack by the "Western Mail" because when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, I raised the issue from the Box opposite. I then referred once again to the pledge given and said how improper I thought it was. And in the 1950 Labour Party programme we recommended as one of the ways of dealing with this situation that the cold storage industry should be nationalised.

Mr. Llewellyn: It appears to be almost an occupational disease with the Labour Party to put in a programme something they have failed to do in previous years.

Mr. Callaghan: Is that all the hon. Gentleman has to say?

10.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): One thing is clear. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made the point, supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), that the central question here is

the pledge that was given. I should like to say a few words, first, about the background of the pledge. Before the war the cold storage space in this country, amounting to about 33 million cubic feet, was on average used to about half its capacity. It was in one sense a distressed industry and there were recollections of what had happened as a result of Government extensions of cold storage space during the First World War.
Cold storage, then, was being used to approximately one-half of its capacity. Hon. Members will appreciate what had happened. For example, the increasing importation of chilled beef into this country had substantially reduced the use of cold storage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) said, it was on 16th January, 1940, that the then Minister of Food, anticipating what was clearly in sight—Government control of cold storage and Government building of additional cold storage space—gave pledges which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East accurately recited.
The pledges were subsequently repeated before the instrumentation of control in March, 1941, by my noble Friend, Lord Woolton, then Minister of Food. He was speaking for the Coalition Government of the day in reaffirming the pledges that were given. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West said that in public life promises must be honoured. He then went on to refer to changed circumstances and a new atmosphere and the like.
I want to put this matter on a temperate and reasonable basis, and I submit that it is essential that such a pledge given to an industry should be honoured, however inconvenient it may now be in the view of many.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I suppose, from what he has just said, that the hon. Gentleman would also believe that the promise that was given by his party at the last General Election to the housewife not to take off food subsidies should also be honoured.

Dr. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman would wish to move me to other and more party-political fields. I propose to confine myself to this important issue, for it lies at the heart of this controversy now.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East quoted the pledge—that the cold stores should be retained on a care-andmaintenance basis as permanent reserves, or that they should be dismantled and disposed of as the Government might decide at the time, or that they should be offered to the industry at prices determined by independent valuation. That is the essence of the pledge.
The Government have taken the view that the pledge, given incidentally by a Coalition Government, should now be honoured, even though it may be difficult and inconvenient to do so, and that the fact of difficulty or inconvenience should make no difference to our determination to honour it. Will the House assume for a moment that it is decided to honour the pledge? Bearing in mind that there were three possible courses described in the pledge, how should the pledge be honoured? The Government propose to honour it in the way I shall describe.
They could, of course, honour it by administering these Government-built cold stores on a care-and-maintenance basis; that is a possibility. Because they have not themselves the staff that is needed for the administration of 47 cold stores, the Government propose to accept the idea of the creation of a management company to administer and manage these cold stores in conformity with the pledge.
I answer at once the main doubt raised by the hon. Member. Although the Government directors of the company will be few in number, they will have an overriding vote on all issues which come before the company. I say that without qualification. I cannot answer the hon. Member's question about the personnel, as no decision has yet been reached, but there will be an overriding vote.
It will be appreciated, and I think it is an important factor, that of these 47 Government cold stores 37 are in safe areas—areas which by their definition of safety have a relatively small population and a relatively small consuming public. To that extent those cold stores are not a useful proposition, commercially or otherwise, in time of peace. They were deliberately built in less populated areas. The result is that they are of relatively little use today.
It is proposed, through this company, to utilise these cold stores for storage purposes—I shall not particularise, for reasons which will be obvious. It is in agreement with the cold store companies that the stores will be used for refrigeration purposes where and when the prewar public cold store capacity is used to the full. We are acting within the pledge. It will be available where needed in any area and, in the case of Cardiff, it will be available for use for refrigeration purposes when the existing refrigeration accommodation in inadequate for the purpose.

Mr. Callaghan: May I have that made clear? Does it mean that when all the private enterprise store is full the low-priced, efficient, Cardiff cold store can be brought into use?

Dr. Hill: It means what I said. In conformity with the pledge given, this accommodation for refrigeration purposes will be used when needed, when the existing cold store accommodation is used to the full.
Let us face this fact. If the Government were to ignore these pledges, or through others so to administer these 47 cold stores—with 37 of them, a very high proportion, in "safe" areas—and if they were determined to get the business, they could get it by undercutting the existing pre-war cold stores. The Government could bankrupt them, and put them out of business, and then it would be necessary to find some device to keep these cold stores on a care-and-maintenance basis against the risk of a future emergency.
But the Government are attached firmly to the keeping of the pledge which has been given as being the only proper course. During the years immediately after the war the demand for cold storage was high. By its very nature, rationing on a large scale demands that a larger proportion of foodstuffs must be in cold storage, and the fact that there had been no chilled beef coming into this country since before the war had raised the need for storage capacity. Of course, the need for it will tend to fall.
There is the additional factor of a tremendous increase in the amount of what might be termed individual refrigeration; butchers' refrigeration which, by its existence, makes it unnecessary to use cold


stores in the way in which they were previously used. So this company is to be the agency under Government control for using these cold stores to the full, consistent with the pledge given; and, in general, they will be used for storage purposes and for refrigeration when needed. In 1938, in Cardiff, 50 per cent. or less of the pre-war refrigeration capacity was used.

Mr. G. Thomas: There were 3,000 unemployed then.

Dr. Hill: Yes, but one cold store—the Great Western, I believe—went out of use before the war.
In that area there is a much heavier reliance on home-killed than on imported meat, although during the war years Cardiff, as a western port, was used more than in pre-war days. If we are, as I believe we should, to keep these promises, then this company should manage cold stores and bring the skill and experience which it will have into this system of control; we believe that that represents a reasonable and sensible way of doing it.
The point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East arises from the pledge, but the difference between us seems to be whether the pledge given by the Government in 1940 should be honoured or should not be honoured. We believe that we are inescapably bound to honour the pledge given to an industry which so fully co-operated during the years of war, and subsequently, and we believe that the promises should be kept; and that, in the light of the pledge, we should make the best use of the cold storage accommodation.

Mr. William Keenan (Liverpool, Kirk-dale): I know a little about this subject. During the war a lot of cold storage accommodation was destroyed in Liverpool, and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if his records disclose that, before the war, we were storing meat, which should have been in refrigerators, in boats because there was insufficient storage accommodation. Is the storage capacity sufficient to dispense with the 47 cold stores which are now presumably owned by the Government? I agree that many of them were put in safe places because of the war.

Dr. Hill: Without notice, I could not give a detailed answer about the Liverpool problem.
On the main question, the position is that there is still a good deal of Government-owned food in the existing cold stores. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) knows, we received up to September, and will be receiving for a little time, meat on Government account from Australia and New Zealand, and there is meat still owed to us under contract by the Argentine and the like.
There are other foodstuffs still in these cold stores. These foodstuffs will remain in these cold stores for some time, We are in a transitional phase between full usage of these stores for Government purposes and a position in which they may not be fully used at all times of the year.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken in a temperate and reasonable way and we are obliged, because that is an objective which usually he does not set himself. But what he said must be cold comfort to the Cardiff Members. He said we were bound by a pledge. If he will look at the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Estimates, he will see that it is clear that Members of those all-party Committees expected some reconsideration of this matter. It was not a party matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that he could not give any assurance on all the matters asked about, because we were governed by these pledges. I doubt whether anything has been done so speedily as the giving of the pledges to the trade in the opening months of the war. It is not good enough, in a matter affecting £7 million, to say we are bound by a verbal assurance given by Sir Henry French at a lunch for the trade.
All these matters were discovered later. It is no good saying that the Coalition Government were aware of this. This was discovered when the Select Committee inquired into these matters and it was found that a permanent official had bound the Government by a verbal assurance given at a lunch.
Let us look at the nature of the pledge. It was given in January, 1940. The Government did not then know that £7 million of the taxpayers' money would be spent on cold stores. They did not know the nature of the war which we were facing, and that, in 15 years' time, these cold stores would still be in the hands of the Government. Those are all new factors and it is ordinary commercial prudence to reconsider this agreement when there have been changes of circumstances.
Everybody, even the trade—and I emphasise that—expected that there would be some negotiation and discussion on this matter. For the Parliamentary Secretary to shrug his shoulders and say that the pledge was given by a Permanent Secretary at the luncheon of the British Association of Refrigeration in January, 1940, and that, therefore, it cannot be looked at again, is really trying the patience of the House.

Dr. Hill: There is only one point on which I wish to intervene. These pledges should not be belittled because they were oral pledges. The pledges were also conveyed to the industry in writing and were carefully phrased. It is clear from the context that they were deliberately given, and the occasion seems to have no reference to their validity.

Mr. Willey: The point I am making, if I may make it plain, is that here is a matter affecting £7 million which was not even negotiated. Nor was an agreement drawn up.

Mr. Callaghan: A sell-out.

Mr. Willey: To say that the luncheon speech was carefully prepared is hardly an answer to the charge that I am making.
As to the nature of the agreement, it has been summarised—the Parliamentary Secretary cannot challenge this—in these words: "The Government cold stores shall not be operated in competition with the private cold stores." As my hon. Friends have said, the Government cold stores work at half the operating costs of private cold stores. Yet the Parliamentary Secretary dares to say "I am going to compel the Government cold stores, which are working at half the costs of the private cold stores, to go out of business. I am going to put the sugar that

is in the Dutch barges into the Government cold stores." That is no answer at all.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not even discussed the matter with the trade. He has not negotiated with the trade. If he had done so he would have said so. He could have told the trade "There has been a change of circumstances; the position is entirely different from that obtaining in 1940, and the matter ought to be discussed on the Floor of the House."

Dr. Hill: Of course there have been discussions with the trade. The hon. Gentleman really must not let it be inferred that the whole business and the arrangements that I have described tonight have not been the subject of discussion with the trade.

Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary cannot deny that he merely accepted what the trade demanded, which was the honouring of the pledge. I do not call that negotiation or discussion. It is an absolute flagrant abuse of public financial liability. I do not think the trade itself ever expected for a moment to get away with it, in face of the comments of the two Select Committees.
It is preposterous that these efficient cold stores should now be closed and put out of use, regardless of the vital national strategic interest. It is important to keep the personnel at the stores and to maintain the stores in operation. It was not a question of their being out-competed because of their location. Reports have shown that they were much too competitive for private trade, and that was the difficulty. I hope that the House will feel that the Parliamentary Secretary's reply is unsatisfactory.

10.58 p.m.

Sir William Darling: One of the characteristics of this Session has been "Hill-baiting." It has gone on day after day, and week after week, with singularly little success. I can understand that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is a frustrated and disappointed politician, faced with a Minister who has handled his Department with consummate success, and his reinforcement tonight by the twins from Cardiff seems to indicate how poor and thin his campaign has been running.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Threadbare Willey.

Sir W. Darling: The Parliamentary Secretary has always given better than he has got, and he requires no great support from me tonight.
However, I am aware of something of the circumstances of the commandeering of this great industry at the outbreak of the war. It has not been made clear, either by my hon. Friend or hon. Gentlemen opposite, that what happened at the outbreak of war was that every cold storage in the country was commandeered and private enterprise disappeared. Many valuable cold stores were taken over. I know one built at a cost of £200,000 and completed in 1939, which was taken over by the Ministry of Food——

Mr. Callaghan: At a very fat profit, no doubt.

Sir W. Darling: —and its owner is now unable to sell it. It is against that background that the House should consider revocation of the 1948 Order.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose——

Sir W. Darling: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had made his speech.

Mr. Callaghan: I had. I am now trying to make the hon. Gentleman's. Does not the hon. Gentleman know that in order to fill in the picture he should add that the profits on the commandeered cold stores were so excessive that they were twice reduced by the Ministry?

Mr. Nabarro: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that these admittedly limited profits were all subject to 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax?

Sir W. Darling: My hon. Friend need not remind me of that; or the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who was, I believe, in happier days, engaged in the business of tax collection with an assiduity that he has been quite unable to repeat in his Parliamentary career.
This industry was commandeered at the outbreak of war, and very serious sacrifices were made—worthless sacrifices, in view of the taxation which resulted. To taunt this industry with being out of date and not up to the standard of modern refrigeration is unworthy

of the Opposition. The building of refrigerators, like all building during the war, was entirely in the control of the Government. It would have been impossible for me, had I wished to run a cold store, to get a licence to build one. I should have been compelled to put up with the store I had, or to put up with the price that the Government gave when they commandeered it. Any profits I might have made would have been taken by the former colleagues of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East.
There has been talk of pledges. The Prime Minister said during the war to the people of Britain, "The war must be won, and we will take from you everything you have in order that it may be won, but all shall be restored to you." This was the paramount pledge, and if the Government are at fault it is that they have waited for eight years before returning this industry to its proper ownership.
The Opposition do not realise that we, too, have a theory of running the business of the country. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East described the theory that we support as one of greed. It is not so. We believe that industry must be run in the interests of the mass of the people and of mankind, and not by means of the somewhat clumsy instrument of nationalisation, which is more suitable to the running of a police force, or tax collection, as the hon. Member knows well.
I am unrepentant. We are as entitled to stand by our pledges as the Opposition are to stand by theirs. Our pledge was that we would set the people free and restore to them what was taken from them in order to win the war. This Order is taking that step, although belatedly, Harm has been done to this industry because it has been hampered and hindered for the last eight years. It is to be set free, not in the interests of the Union Cold Storage Company or anyone else like that, but of the people of this country.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Ede: We must assume that that is the best that can be said on this Order. I should be quite prepared to leave it at that. What are we asked to do? We are asked to accept the position that the


least efficient storage accommodation shall be used and the most efficient shall not be used. That is a doctrine to which I should not think the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) would subscribe. It is astonishing to see the subterfuges to which politicians are driven when they try—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South need not put his hand by the side of his mouth. I am quite willing to listen to anything that he has to say.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman knows about this matter very well.

Mr. Ede: What is the hon. Gentleman saying? Why can we not all share the knowledge? Why these secrets?

Sir W. Darling: That would come more fittingly from his hon. Friend.

Mr. Ede: I am sure that my hon. Friend needs no prompting from the hon. Member. The strange doctrine which we have heard, that the least efficient is to survive and the most efficient is not to be used, is not one which we can accept. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, and to the Government, that he should have approached the industry to discover what was the proper thing to be done in the public interest, in the light of the efficient accommodation which the Government had been able to provide.

Dr. Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman carry that a stage further? If the industry had said, "Keep your promise," would he have kept the promise, or broken it?

Mr. Ede: That is the position with which I was faced in connection with the fire service. I went to the people to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) had given pledges, and I said, "Do you wish them to be kept?" They said that they did, as in any event the service would be under public control. I said, "Since you ask for the pledges to be kept they shall be"; and ever since they have been cursing me for not taking the service away. I kept the pledge.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not approached the industry. He has not put to the industry that departure from the agreement which was entered into would increase public efficiency. Until he can say that he has been to the industry and that those in it were so unmindful of the public interest that they said, "Our private profit first and the public interest second," he has no right to put to me the question that he did. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in the Division Lobby in favour of the Motion.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 168.

Division No. 241.]
AYES
[11.9 p.m.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Awbery, S. S.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Balfour, A.
Fienburgh, W.
Keenan, W.


Bartley, P.
Finch, H. J.
Kenyon, C.


Beswick, F.
Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)
King, Dr. H. M.


Bins, G. H. C.
Foot, M. M.
Lawson, G. M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Forman, J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lewis, Arthur


Bowden, H. W.
Gibson, C. W.
MacColl, J. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Grey, C. F.
McGhee, H. G.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McGovern, J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McInnes, J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hamilton, W. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, W.
Manuel, A. C.


Burke, W. A.
Hargreaves, A.
Mason, Roy


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mayhew, C. P.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hayman, F. H.
Mikardo, Ian


Champion, A. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mitchison, G. R.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Molson, A. H. E.


Coldrick, W.
Holman, P.
Moody, A. S.


Collick, P. H.
Holmes, Horace
Morley, R.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Houghton, Douglas
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hoy, J. H.
Mulley, F. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Murray, J. D.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Nally, W.


Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Meal, Harold (Bolsover)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Janner, B.
Oliver, G. H.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Oswald, T.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Owen, W. J.




Padley, W. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Watkins, T. E.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Weitzman, D.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
West, D. G.


Pearson, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Porter, G
Stross, Dr. Barnett
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Swingler, S. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Probert, A. R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wigg, George


Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilkins, W. A.


Pryde, D. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Willey, F. T.


Rhodes, H.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Winerbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Royle, C.
Thornton, E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Yates, V. F.


Short, E. W.
Wallace, H. W.



Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Warbey, W. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Perkins, Sir Robert


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Alport, C. J. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Armstrong, C. W
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Banks, Col. C.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Barlow, Sir John
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Redmayne, M.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Bell Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Hyiton-Foster, Sir H. B H.
Roper, Sir Harold


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Jennings, Sir Roland
Russell, R. S.


Bishop, F. P.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Kaberry, D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W


Boyle, Sir Edward
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Sharples, Maj. R. C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Kerr, H. W.
Shepherd, William


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Lambton, Viscount
Simon, J, E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Bullard, D. G.
Leather, E. H. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Soames, Capt. C.


Campbell, Sir David
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Carr, Robert
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Channon, H.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Storey, S.


Cole, Norman
Longden, Gilbert
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Studholme, H. G.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Summers, G. S


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
McKibbin, A. J.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Teeling, W.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Deedes, W. F.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Donner, Sir P. W.
Manningham-Buller, Rt.Hn. Sir Reginald
Tilney, John


Drewe, Sir C.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Touche, Sir Gordon


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Turton, R. H.


Errington, Sir Eric
Marples, A. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Fell, A.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maude, Angus
Vosper, D. F.


Fort, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Wakfield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Mellor, Sir John
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Molson, A. H. E.
Wall, Major Patrick


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Glover, D.
Neave, Alrey
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Gough, C. F. H.
Nicholls, Harmar
Wellwood, W.


Gower, H. R.
Nicolson, Niger (Bournemouth, E.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Wills, G.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Oakshott, H. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wood, Hon R.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Ormsby-Gors, Hon. W. D.
Woollam, John Victor


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, R. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES;


Heath, Edward
Partridge, E.
Mr. Richard Thompson and




Colonel J. H. Harrison.


Question put, and agreed to.

REQUISITIONED HOUSES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Allan.]

11.18 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Price: I have found the debate to which we have just been listening very encouraging. I have heard the Government restore freedom to yet another section of the population; I have heard the Opposition trying very hard to persuade them not to do so, and I have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food insisting on doing so. That is very pleasant to hear. I only hope now that my hon. Friend will follow in such footsteps and restore yet another freedom. I am asking him to restore freedom to the owners of requisitioned properties either to live in them or to allow their families to live in them, and to restore freedom to them in other respects.
This Government have many fine achievements to their credit. Not least has been their success in dealing with the housing problem, but there is one aspect of this matter about which I have been very unhappy, and that is the problem of the requisitioned houses. For many months before the Summer Recess, I had been pressing for a statement of policy on this matter, but without success. I have, however, been very heartened by the reply which the Minister has given to a Question earlier today, from which, if I understood him correctly, we may expect an announcement of policy very soon.
I am, of course, aware that the problem has been investigated by a committee, and that so far as London is concerned, that committee was not very positive in its recommendations. I cannot feel—and I am sure that the Minister will agree—that that absolves the Ministry. The committee may not have been able to find a solution, but the Minister must. We all know that the problem is a difficult one. Indeed, no Member sitting for a constituency such as Lewisham, with nearly 4,000 families living in requisitioned properties, can be in any doubt as to its complexity.
I suggest that we must not allow that to blind us to the hardships and injustices

which are being imposed on many owners of requisitioned properties. We in the Conservative Party claim to believe in a property-owning democracy, a claim which I am proud to make, but there is not much democracy in owning requisitioned property. May I make it clear here that I am not concerned so much with property which is in the ownership of housing trusts; I am concerned with those houses which belong to individuals, houses which, for the most part, have been acquired by them as a result of years of industry and thrift?
We have another claim in this country to which I am proud to subscribe, and that is that an Englishman's home is his castle. That is a claim which he was quite ready to give up during the war and immediately after the war, but with every passing month it is a claim which cries aloud for reinstatement.
I have here a letter, the last paragraph of which I shall quote. It comes from the Ministry:
The Minister takes the occasion of your representations to the Prime Minister to state quite definitely that it is the intention of the Government to dispense with requisitioning at the earliest practicable moment and that, during the time when such powers must continue to be exercised, every effort will be made to minimise the inconvenience which it causes.
The date of that letter is 5th April, 1950—four and a half years ago—and it came from a Socialist Minister. It is hardly to be wondered at, then, if the owners of requisitioned properties are becoming a little impatient, particularly when one bears in mind that they are living under conditions which try their patience very severely. Rightful owners have lost the right to live in their own house; they have lost the freedom to sell that house.
If such an owner happens to be an old man, he may have lost all hope of ever living in it again, even though requisitioning can have taken place while he was evacuated during the war, perhaps with a Government Department or even at the request of the Government, as long as 14 years ago. Some rent strangers' houses whilst strangers live in theirs. Some live in part of their own house whilst strangers live in another part. Sometimes they are unfriendly, hostile strangers, about whom the owners can do nothing, although they are the owners of the house.
No responsible Member of this House can approve the action of a very small number—so far as I know, only one—of owners of requisitioned properties who are tending to take the law into their own hands. We cannot approve, but I can understand the emotions which move them to take such steps, particularly when I remember the letter I have just read which, as I have said, is 4½ years old.
Yet look at the position today. I cannot do better than quote two letters with regard to cases in my own constituency as illustrations. One constituent has written to me:
I feel compelled to write to you as I am the owner of a house in … which has been requisitioned since 1940. I have a son who has a wife and baby aged seven months and they are all living here with my husband and self owing to being unable to find other accommodation. We have only one kitchen and cooker in the house and sometimes things get very trying and difficult, not to mention the fact that it would be much more desirable for them to have a home of their own. I have applied to the Council for the release of the property stating my case, but without success.
The council has turned them down.
In another case:
I write seeking your guidance in a matter relating to a tower flat in the above-mentioned property which was requisitioned by the Lewisharn Borough Council in 1944 at a rental of £45 per annum. I have made application for the derequisitioning of this flat as I now require the accommodation for my daughter who is being married early next year. I regret that the Council has refused my application, and I am informed that the Committee concerned is unwilling to reconsider its decision for at least another twelve months.
I have noticed that other properties in the borough have been derequisitioned and are, in fact, still vacant. I consider my application not unreasonable, especially in view of the length of time the property has been requisitioned and the low rental paid by the Council. I would mention that my daughter has been in hospital with T.B. spine for two-and-a-half years.…
I find it difficult to understand how a local authority can turn down such applications and that in this country, under a Conservative Government nine years after the war, rightful owners can be victimised and injustice done to them in this way. I urge the Minister to give us hope tonight that these people can look forward to better prospects in the not too far-distant future.
I should like to refer to one other aspect of this matter. The Minister might

tell me in reply that the Ministry has already indicated to local authorities circumstances in which the Ministry feels that property might be derequisitioned. It is probably true that some local authorities are doing their best to follow the policy indicated by the Minister. It is equally true that other local authorities make no effort whatever to follow that policy.
There is no consistency whatever. Not only is there injustice but there is inequality of injustice. Some owners of requisitioned property are fortunate enough to live in boroughs where the local authority is doing its best to follow the policy laid down by the Ministry. Others have the misfortune to live in other local authority areas where that is not done.
There is, therefore, inequality of injustice. Perhaps that is partly due to the fact that the problem itself is unequal. It so happens that some local authorities suffered more than others during the war—I speak mainly of London—with the result that this problem of requisitioned houses is much more difficult in some parts than others. It is, therefore, unwise to attempt to deal with the problem on a borough basis. Those boroughs which have been more fortunate ought to be prepared to co-operate with the unfortunate boroughs in an effort to find a solution.
I do not want to be too dogmatic as to how it should be done. Perhaps the answer is that some central authority for London should be set up to handle this matter, and perhaps a proportion of new houses becoming available could be allocated to this body for the re-housing of families at present living in requisitioned properties the owners of which want them back for a perfectly good reason, whether for their own occupation, for members of their families or because of financial hardship, which in many cases is extremely pressing, or for some other reasons which have been mentioned too often for me to have to repeat now. I do not believe that this problem can be settled on a borough basis. A wider view must be taken.
I stress to my hon. Friend not only the need for justice and equality of justice but also the need for speed. These people have waited too long. We have tonight restored freedom to certain cold storage


interests. Surely we should restore freedom to owners of requisitioned properties at least at the same time. I suggest that they have a prior right of freedom. At least they should have equal freedom. That surely is part of the basic philosophy of the Conservative Party. I know that the question is a difficult one; I know the problems; but we have tackled more difficult problems than this, even in the last three years. I ask the Minister to tackle this problem now and give us some hope tonight that that will in fact be done.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. E. Partridge: I want to urge on my hon. Friend that not only are there many cases of injustice in the borough of Lewisham but very many in Battersea and other London boroughs. I do hope that the Minister will be able to find a solution to this problem and not only bring justice to people who require their own homes back, but 'prevent an even greater injustice which I see taking place throughout the country and, I regret to say, particularly in Battersea. That injustice is the application of a compulsory purchase order to a house that already has been derequisitioned by a local council with the excuse, "You have not got it now; you had much better part with it altogether." That has the effect of debasing the price in favour of the local authority.
These injustices ought not to be in existence in our country today. We have fought for freedom, we have fought for justice, and the people of our country ought now to be enjoying it. They look with confidence to my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend to see that that justice is done.

11.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): My hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price), has raised an issue of wide concern. I hope to make clear during the course of my remarks that it is the concern of my right hon. Friend, who made a statement about it earlier today which I think my hon. Friend has seen was sufficient to indicate that he is giving this matter close and detailed study.
My hon. Friend has given a very fair account with great moderation, for which I thank him. What he said about real hardship caused to individual owners is beyond dispute, and I shall not attempt to dispute it. I think it will be of help to my hon. Friend and the House to understand the nature of this problem and the nature of the study it entails by my right hon. Friend if I say a word or two about the general background.
I think my hon. Friend is aware of the source of this problem. The requisitioning of housing began during the war, mainly to house people who had been bombed out or evacuated. That was continued after the war, as were other measures of this nature, as a temporary way of meeting part of the immediate need to find homes for inadequately housed families. The properties are held and maintained by local authorities on behalf of my right hon. Friend under Defence Regulation 51.
I should like to stress that the number of properties held is even at this moment being steadily reduced. There were 86,000 such properties, representing 130,000 families, when we took office. Now there are 64,000, representing 100,000 families. The majority—50,000, representing 75,000 families—are in the London area, where, of course, our problem is much the biggest, and much the most intractable. It goes without saying that the cost of all this is very heavy for the Treasury. It is more than £5 million a year. We recognise that requisitioning cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.
My hon. Friend said something about the committee which reported on this subject. The working party which we set up in 1952 has issued three reports, two on this subject. In the light of their recommendations, we have asked all local authorities with few requisitioned properties to release them by the end of this year; that is, all local authorities with up to two families per 1,000 in requisitioned properties. The working party also recommended that authorities with up to six families per 1,000 in requisitioned premises should be set a timetable for clearing those premises by the end of 1957.
This left 48 local authorities, of which 44 are in the London area, with more than six families per thousand so accommodated; and I must say, of


course, that for some of those authorities the figure is not six but nearer 20 and 30. The working party could make no recommendation in this field, and it is precisely to this field that we are giving special attention.
The position in London is that since the date of the working party's first report, which was in October, 1952, 6,080 properties, representing 9,000 family units, have been released in the London region, 3,080 in outer London. Lewisham has 2,290 properties, representing 3,500 family units and has released 290; and with one exception that is the best record of releases in the London region.
Lewisham has shown itself sympathetic to the claims of the owners to whom my hon. Friend has referred, and who are suffering hardship because their properties have been kept from them; and these include some hard and tragic cases. Lewisham is also co-operating in the release of uneconomic properties—those losing most money.

Mr. H. A. Price: I assure my hon. Friend that I appreciate that Lewisham has a good record, but the record is such that it makes me shudder to think what is happening in those boroughs with a bad record.

Mr. Deedes: What I have said was intended as a tribute to the hon. Member's borough, and should not be taken as an invidious comparison.
In pressing local authorities to release properties, we ask that special attention should be given in two spheres; to owner-occupiers who are suffering hardship, and second, to the particularly expensive houses. We do not underrate the problem confronting the London authorities. We appreciate that they have big waiting lists and that nearly all of them are short of land on which to build; some are without land of any kind. But there are ways in which the problem can be attacked in piecemeal fashion.
First, local authorities can persuade, and they try to persuade, the owner to accept the occupants as tenants. They can set aside a proportion of new houses for those people living in requisitioned premises. Local authorities can enter into leases, or they can buy suitable houses and add them to the permanent housing pool. I should mention that if they buy the houses it is not done in the

way which has been hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge). They are not obtained at compulsory purchase price.

Mr. Partridge: I did not hint at it; what I did was to charge the borough council with getting these houses by an unfair method.

Mr. Deedes: I do not follow my hon. Friend; is he referring to requisitioned houses?

Mr. Partridge: To requisitioned houses purchased by means of a compulsory purchase order while the premises are under requisition.

Mr. Deedes: The procedure I have been referring to is limited to suitable cases because if the houses are too expensive the local authorities cannot run them economically and my Department cannot assist by means of subsidy or by grant. Many of these houses have already been improved or converted at the expense of the Exchequer.
When the local authorities buy a house, the price they pay is based on the assumption that the house is still in the state it was when first it was requisitioned. When it has been converted at the Government's expense, and improved at the Government's expense, that value is enhanced. We could seek to recover the enhancement value from the local authorities. In fact, we take the lenient view that it should be construed as a grant towards the purchase.
Speaking generally, I can say that what has already been done shows that progress is steady.

Mr. H. A. Price: I am sorry to keep interrupting. The Parliamentary Secretary has stressed the financial implications. I hope he will not carry that too far. What is happening in some local authority areas is that they are not dequisitioning on the basis of the hardship to the owner, but on the basis of the cost to themselves and to the Government. That should not be the first consideration. Justice should come first.

Mr. Deedes: I do not underrate hardship, but the economics of this matter cannot be ignored.
We have made some progress towards release, and I think I have shown that


progress is steady. There have been 10,000 releases in the last 12 months; about 500 local authorities have released all their houses since October, 1952; another 250 should have them all released by the end of this month, but I am afraid that that is unlikely.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made clear earlier today, we are not allowing this problem to drift. It will not be solved overnight, nor by the stroke of a pen. The

nature of the problem makes that impossible. I hope that the words of my right hon. Friend earlier today will be taken as an earnest of the Government's intention to come to grips with this problem anew. No less than my hon. Friend who raised this subject tonight, we are anxious to see this problem resolved in a reasonable period ahead.

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.